Kris Murray Blasts Donald Trump

murray trump feature

Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray is asking her fellow councilmembers to take a stand against the toxic rhetoric and tactics employed by presidential candidate Donald Trump, his campaign and many of his supporters.

From her e-newsletter sent out yesterday:

Taking a Stand Against Divisive Rhetoric in U.S. Presidential Race

This presidential election has seen political rhetoric and candidate behavior fall to new lows unbecoming our great nation.

At last night’s city council meeting, I called for a resolution condemning the rhetoric of Donald Trump and the violent actions of his staff and supporters, all condoned by Trump during this unprecedented presidential campaign.

Anaheim is the 10th largest city in the State of California and the largest city in the County of Orange. We are one of the oldest cities in the state with a diverse fabric of neighborhoods that make up our great city. Our population is more than 50 percent Latino, and we have one of the largest Muslim populations in the country. Anaheim is also one of the top tourist destinations in the world with nearly 26 million annual visitors. As elected officials, we have a moral obligation to speak out against bigotry and hate speech directed at those we represent.

Trump has viciously attacked women, people of many races, religion and creeds, veterans and POWs, representatives of the media who challenge his statements, many of our allied nations, local, state and national leaders, people of states who don’t vote in support of him, Republican party leaders who follow election law inconvenient to his campaign, and even most recently Pope Francis. In fact, anyone who engages in civil discourse that challenges him on a personal or policy level becomes the subject of vicious and malevolent attacks by Trump, his campaign and his supporters.

The actions of any presidential candidate must be held to the highest ethical standards. Trump has consistently denigrated the office he seeks and the people of this nation by extension. We can and must expect more from anyone seeking to serve as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the nation’s armed forces.

Whether it is Trump or any candidate running for elected office in a representative republic, the survival of America’s fundamental principles requires civil discourse, understanding diverse views and moving forward with decisions benefiting society as a whole. No less is acceptable for the future leader of the free world. 

The resolution condemning the words and actions of presidential candidate Donald Trump will be heard by the Anaheim City Council on Tuesday, April 26th and I respectfully ask for the community’s support to take this principled stand in our city.

God bless the city of Anaheim and God bless America.


Kris Murray

Council Member
City of Anaheim


  1. I’m not certain where I got this, but, truth be known, this is a pretty mild campaign compared to some in the past!

    Name calling: Donald Trump, in particular, is so fond of calling people names that a running list of epithets being kept by the New York Times now includes more than 200 of his targets. Not a one of his zingers comes close to what leaders and would-be leaders spat at each other throughout history though, and not just because Trump uses far fewer syllables.

    Jefferson’s supporters, for instance, described Adams as suffering from a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” Adams’ supporters in turn called Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.” Theodore Roosevelt called Woodrow Wilson “that Byzantine logothete, supported by all the flubdubs, mollycoddles, and flapdoodle pacifists.” (Translation: A logothete is a paper pusher; a flubdub is one who speaks nonsense; to mollycoddle means to treat with kid gloves.)

    And then there was Thomas Paine, who wrote “The Rights of Man,” and whose critics, according to Harvard historian Jill Lepore, described him as follows:
    Horribly ugly, smelly, rude and relentlessly cruel…caus(ing) his first wife’s death by beating her while she was pregnant and abus(ing) his second wife almost as badly, except that she wasn’t really his wife because he never consummated that marriage, preferring, instead, to have sex with cats.

    In other words, no one has (yet) accused anyone of bestiality this campaign season, so we’re still ahead.

    Speaking of sex, and the sexes:
    Our earliest leaders may have descended from Puritans, but there was nothing puritanical about them. A certain current hit musical incorporates Alexander Hamilton’s affair as a plot device, as it led to the young country’s first sex scandal. What the Broadway version doesn’t include is John Adams’ opinion that Hamilton’s actions were caused by “a superabundance of secretions, which he couldn’t find enough whores to absorb.”

    Jefferson, in turn, was accused of having sex with his slaves, an accusation that would not be proven for centuries, but that didn’t stop his contemporaries from making it. Benjamin Franklin, who wrote a sex advice column in the 1700s (which included ruminations on why younger men should have affairs with older women because “regarding only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two women to know an old from a young one”), was described by Adams thusly: “His whole life has been one continued insult to good manners and to decency.”

    “It got scatological and salacious,” says Joseph J. Ellis, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Founding Brothers.” “History is full of bad behavior.”

    John Quincy Adams was called a pimp, which he probably wasn’t. Andrew Jackson was called a bigamist, which he wasn’t, but his wife was, because she married him without realizing that her divorce was not yet final. Not enough to smear Jackson’s wife, opponents went to work on his parents: “General Jackson’s mother was a common prostitute, brought to this country by the British soldiers! She afterward married a mulatto man, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson is one!” wrote one newspaper at the time.

    So, no, Senator Cruz, wives and families have not historically been off-limits. Julia Grant was called cross-eyed. Mary Todd Lincoln spent too much money on dresses and put too much faith in séances. Nellie Taft smoked, and Rachel Jackson was plump. When Warren G. Harding died in office, political gossipers said his wife Florence poisoned him.. No, there are no instances of nude photos of would-be first ladies used in attack ads, but that’s likely only because no other would-be first lady has posed in the nude professionally.

    They called each other cowards
    Cruz did so directly . (“Donald, you’re a sniveling coward, leave Heidi the hell alone.”) Trump did so indirectly, saying he is the only one strong enough to stand up to Putin, Mexico, ISIS and hecklers at campaign rallies. Back in the day, politicians used the term when they were talking about things like actual war.

    When former Mexican War Gen. Winfield Scott tried to unseat President Franklin Pierce, also a Mexican War general, Scott’s supporters dubbed Pierce “the fainting general.” Pierce had, in fact, once fainted on the battlefield and had to be carried off. What his opponents didn’t mention was that it wasn’t fear that made him faint. It was the pain from a wrenched knee caused by a lurching horse.

    There were also a lot of snipes about the sturdiness of the other guy’s spine. Ulysses S. Grant, the 18th president, remarked that James Garfield , the 20th president, “is not possessed of the backbone of an angleworm.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, then assistant secretary of the Navy, said about William McKinley , who was serving his first presidential term: “McKinley has no more backbone than a chocolate éclair.” (And, yes, I also wondered, with all the talk lately about hand size and such, whether this éclair was really just an éclair. Roosevelt biographer Edmund Morris assures me that “TR was, alas, incapable of double-entendres.” I still choose to believe Trump is not actually the first of our presidents to allude to declare his is firmer, if not bigger.)

    When not questioning their opponents’ “spines,” our forebears questioned each other’s brains:
    “That Washington is not a scholar is certain,” John Adams said. “That he is too illiterate, unlearned, unread for his station is equally beyond dispute.” Jefferson agreed and advised ambassador to France James Monroe to tell the French to essentially ignore Washington because he was senile.

    Lincoln — the now revered and idolized Lincoln that Republican candidates are falling over themselves to admire — also wasn’t considered terribly bright. “Buffoon,” “Ignoramus Abe” and “well-meaning baboon” (a phrase with clear racial overtones) were some of the names Lincoln’s critics summoned during his 1860 campaign against Stephen Douglas. And Lincoln, in turn, said of Douglas, “His argument is as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that has been starved to death.” (The idea that Lincoln was uneducated, bordering on illiterate, followed him into the White House. After a certain speech in Gettysburg, Pa., the Chicago Times wrote, “We did not conceive it possible that even Mr. Lincoln would produce a paper so slipshod, so loose-joined, so puerile, not alone in literary construction, but in its ideas, its sentiments, its grasp. He has outdone himself.” So there’s that.)

    They have basically called their opponents insane
    “Pathological,” Trump said of Ben Carson, before the former surgeon dropped out and endorsed the businessman.

    It was hardly the first time the sanity of a powerful politician has been questioned. There was, as already noted, Jefferson calling Washington senile and concerns that Lincoln suffered from what had not yet been named “depression” and agreement among critics that “Bloody” Andrew Jackson was probably simply crazy. Then, in 1964, a survey of members of the American Psychiatric Association found that more than half of respondents believed that Republican candidate Barry Goldwater was clinically insane. (Their suggested diagnoses included “megalomaniac, paranoid, and grossly psychotic … schizophrenia.”)
    This led to the establishment of the “Goldwater Rule,” in which the APA’s ethics requirements ban psychiatrists from commenting about any individual who they have not actually treated. There are exceptions if you add caveats and disclaimers, though, and this election cycle includes a Vanity Fair article in which psychologists and social workers opine that the Republican frontrunner is “actually a narcissist.”
    They flirted — and more — with violence

    Trump has boasted that he could stand “in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” Andrew Jackson kind of did. Estimates of his duel participation tally vary from a dozen to several hundred, but there was at least one in which the other guy died. That would be Charles Dickinson, a rival breeder of racehorses, who accused Jackson of reneging on a bet, and also brought up the bigamy thing. Voters seemed to agree that Jackson had been insulted and was simply defending his honor.

    Trump has also warned there may be riots if he is denied the Republican nomination, and that too has happened. In 1912, supporters of Theodore Roosevelt and those of Howard Taft brought bats, guns and even dynamite onto the convention floor. And the possibility that a spurned candidate could “take his voters and go home” in a third-party run has also happened, that same year in fact, when Roosevelt left the convention, booked a ballroom across town and declared himself the nominee of what came to be known as the Bull Moose Party.

    They predicted the end of the republic
    All this bad behavior was justified by the fear that the target of that behavior was a threat to the future of the country. Whether that was truly felt or simply manufactured is between each politician and his conscience, but the case was continually made that the other guy would destroy America.

    Usually that didn’t happen. During the election of 1800, for instance, one editorial warned that should Jefferson win, voters should be “prepared to see your dwellings in flames … female chastity violated, or children writhing on the pike.”

    Sometimes, though, the alarmists were right. Rabble-rousing crowds did swarm unfettered, after Jackson’s election — trampling the public quarters of the White House on Inauguration Day, breaking furniture and china while trying to get to the free refreshments. (Eventually the bowls of punch were moved onto the lawn and the mobs followed.)

    And then there were those who said the election of Abraham Lincoln would literally lead to the disintegration of the United States. It did. At least for a while.

    I explain all this to the 20-somethings, and they have more questions — mostly about whether they should fear civil war.

    Again, I try to put things in historical context. Most of the time, I remind them, the worst actors never actually won the presidency. William Randolph Hearst (a newspaper magnate, with more money than couth, who spent the modern equivalent of $54 million of his own money on a presidential campaign in 1904) never got the nomination. Theodore Roosevelt’s third-party bid was unsuccessful. Goldwater was soundly defeated. The American electorate has regularly shown itself able to pull up before impact.
    Oh, they say, then historians aren’t worried? So I don’t have to be?

    Not exactly. As Doris Kearns Goodwin put it recently on “ Meet the Press”: “As a historian, I might say, ‘200 years from now, a historian will be able to detail this the way I couldn’t.’ But as a citizen, it’s pretty scary and sad.”

    Yes, this may have happened in the past, she and others say, but that doesn’t make it OK when it happens now. Norms and standards have changed over the centuries, and our leaders are expected to change too. More is at stake in the modern world, where nations are dependent on the U.S. economically and militarily. And unlike even a few election cycles ago, every imprudent utterance goes out to that world unfiltered.

    “For many decades most of what was ‘published’ — broadcast on television or radio, printed in books, newspapers and magazines — was edited, reviewed by a person or more often a group of people, an editorial staff, whose entire purpose was to exert judiciousness,” Lepore says. Most recently, though, “nearly all of what is ‘published’ — posted, tweeted, blogged, televised, dash-camed — is unedited. There is media, but it no longer mediates.”

    What then to tell the 20-somethings?
    “I don’t know what you tell to young people,” admits Ellis, who teaches many of them at Mount Holyoke. “You can tell them the republic is not going to go out of existence, I am pretty sure of that. The good thing about history is we’ve seen worse and survived it. But what things will look like after this mess” of a campaign? “I have no idea.”
    What he said.

    • Mr. Fitzgerald didn’t break any furniture or China during Tom Tait’s inauguration but he did grab more than his share of chocolate desserts while complaining about the City of Anaheim wasting taxpayer dollars on such wonderful enticements!

    • Mr. Cagley, what are you doing so far “electronically” north of home? I loved your platform for the City Council run, I wish a lot more folks could see the reasoning you tried to bring to the table. (BTW: I assume you have read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Bully Pulpit? Great book on TR, Taft, and the rise of investigative journalism….Also, we were founded by Separatists, not Puritans.) Otherwise thank you for an excellent history lesson.

      I think the difference between those previous insults during campaigns of the past is that they were aimed at the candidates, their families, and their immediate supporters, while Trump is leveling false accusations and violence-inciting bigotry at entire segments of the American population. Trump’s hate-mongering does not limit itself to the political arena, he spreads the disease as far and as wide as possible into the civilian world, in a way that we haven’t seen since the Civil War when Americans of African heritage were considered less than human, and referenced as such in public statements. One would hope we had evolved in our understanding of humanity in the 150 years since then, and stopped treating all of any ethnicity or religion as of one mind without respect for the individuality of each person. But Trump’s packed auditoriums cheering him on would deny that optimistic view of America. (I have to consider the possibility that rather than paying for air time and mailings, Trump instead opted to pay film extras to attend his rallies, and convince the world that “real Americans” are showing up to applaud his special brand of ignorance. It makes more sense to me than to believe we have that many knuckle-dragging idiots in this nation.) So I hope I have made myself very clear, I am as far from a fan of Trump as one can get. I will start a write-in campaign for a cartoon character before I vote for Trump, even if he becomes the GOP nominee. BUT…..

      Just as Mr. Cagley’s Council campaign focused on seeing the big picture rather than getting mired in the small details that must then be backed out of when we realize the puzzle piece doesn’t fit, we have become so focused on the “what” and the “how” that we fail to see “why.” This leads to Murray’s attempt to use the bully pulpit of her elected office for the purpose of objecting to political speech, something I believe to be forbidden by law. While I agree with her stand against Trump, who is probably the most vile of candidates ever to pretend his way into a GOP meeting, I am afraid she has selected the wrong venue for her objections. Should the voters of this once great nation select Mr. Trump as the next leader of the free world, I would expect Murray to introduce Resolutions against legislation Trump may propose that may result in harm to the citizens of Anaheim. But as long as he is merely a candidate for office, he is still a private citizen, his words are still merely political rhetoric and only represent his exercise of rights to free speech. It is not a function of any branch of elected office to use public resources to approve or oppose the political speech, outrageous statements, or personal opinions of private citizens, simply because we find them abhorrent. in fact, while i agree Trump is not only disgusting, but potentially dangerous in his proven ability and willingness to incite violence, I am far more afraid of handing Kris Murray the legal means to use her public office to officially sanction free speech. No. Hell no. Never. If she tries it I will be the first one to drop a dime to the (usually despised) ACLU.

      I guess we can’t expect more from Anaheim leaders who have allowed (or supported) use of the public information office to spread false information to defame and discredit those who have disagreed with those leaders. The same leaders have also used their position in office to prevent the distribution of opposing views in our local newspaper. But those are actions that are not supposed to be condoned, and have been taken in relative secret. To come out of the closet and take such action to oppose the free speech of others as an official act, right out in the open, is opening a door we will not close again any time soon, and we should not be doing this. That Murray even considered bringing this up in a public meeting, and then backing it up with a written statement, makes her at least as scary in my mind as Trump.

      And now, let the angry comments begin.

      • Hi Cynthia! Only four paragraphs this time!

      • Matthew Cunningham

        Oh good grief, Cynthia. No free speech is being “sanctioned.” And your claiming Kris Murray is “as scary in my mind as Trump” only betrays a total lack of proportion and perspective on your part. May I suggest you’d be better served in making your points if you eschewed hysteria?

        • No hysteria, Matt. Trump is a blowhard, expressing his views as a private citizen. I am terrified at the idea of his becoming someone with the authority to make his private opinions some basis for official action, but if that time comes (please Lord Jesus return for us first) there are laws to prevent his taking those actions. I am much more afraid of someone who ALREADY IS an elected official, who wants to use her position to make her own personal opinions an official act. Having been in office for 6 years now, she should have completed ethics training about 3 times, and each and every time she SHOULD have been notified of the Political Reform Act’s prohibitions against using public resources for personal and political purposes. Does she not get it? Or has she chosen to ignore that portion of the law? Is either answer acceptable in your mind? I guess so…

      • No need to get angry at anything, except perhaps your false concern and support of illegality. Are you kidding? People have a right to vote for whomever they want to that is running for office. Just because leftist commissars like you don’t agree with other people, doesn’t make your point legitimate. Those people out there trying to silence voters and you apparently are in the wrong. You really ought to read up on U.S. civics and government in a democracy….

      • No angry comments, just a question about your lies involving Trumps “hate mongering”. Can’t imagine where he has done that? If you mean his comments on illegal immigration or Hillary Clintons style, or etc. etc. those are all just personal opinions. What are you some kind of Soviet style leftist commissar that needs to monitor speech?? LOL

  2. I do not support Kris Murray’s gross misrepresentation of Presidential Candidate Donald Trump’s positions. She should immediately refocus her attention locally to the removal of murderous graffiti vandals and gangbangers from Anaheim, hold parents accountable for their children’s crimes under California Parental Responsability Laws, introduce an Anaheim version of California Law to hold parents accountable for illegal gang activity to give our police department more tools to stop the overwhelming domination of dangerous street gangs and speak out against the murders of Mr. Packaging Vice President Daniel Rowlett, the murder of 9-year old Greenacre Girl Ximena Meza, the murder of Church Volunteer and Boy Sout Leader Dave Douglas, the severing of the spine by vicious stabbing of African American Scrap Metal Recycler James Blue and the ongoing intimidation of my Mexican friends by gangbangers at East Street and other gang controlled neighborhoods throughout our city. Stop wasting time.

    • NO………………she should be removed from office since she violated her oaths… If she is going to be a politician in an illegall sanctuary city, than she should at least keep her big mouth shut while she is violating her oath of office…..Right?? I love how everyone just dances around these serious issues…like OPEN BORDERS….

  3. Are you serious? Considering denouncing Trump’s rhetoric? What does that really mean? You want the whole city of Anaheim to get behind an agenda that promotes hate and silencing of free speech? You are just going to scare away certain types of people (the people with money). The people who actually want to make Anaheim a better place to live and do business. Lots of educated people who see no harm in wanting to make the United States and this community a better place to live.

    When is being anti-illegal immigrant ever a racist belief? You are trying to make other people feel guilty for believing in law and order? For wanting to make sure our children are safer and have a bright future? Actually documenting people who want to come into this country is the right thing to do. When has it turned into an evil undertaking?

    It looks like you want to do this for political gain. I assure you that your reign on the city council will end because of this. We will do every thing in our power to make sure individuals like you do not continue to espouse hate and bigotry towards law-abiding citizens of this country.

    You are the worst kind of dictator who uses phrases like “racist” and “whatever-phobe” to promote your agenda. People like you who gang up on the citizens who are trying to do the right thing and play by the rules. And you do this for political gain only. You are an embarrassment to our city and you should be immediately removed from your position for promoting such hate and silencing of free speech.

    • The fact is Murray is announcing her support for the population in the state that are here illegally, rather than the citizens of the state. What’s the problem, her illicit position is clear being a politician in a sanctuary city. By the way, although most illegal aliens in the state are from Mexico, there are many from all over the world. How long does it go on? Those questions don’t get asked by Murray and her ILK!!

  4. I blame this all on you you started it you’re against her and you’re okay with illegal aliens living in your city your crime is higher than any City around and it’s supposed to be the happiest place in town and it’s not I lived streets from Disneyland and from Anaheim a blocked within Anaheim area there’s more important things that you can put on the agenda than Donald Trump believe me let me take your seat for a day see how that works new jobs we have criminals coming across the border I in California and you know what I’m talking about cuz you live right there in it you can be the one to change this but you’re going about it the wrong way so what you have done is cause in children that was sprayed with pepper spray people fight in front of young children so think about your actions and there should be consequences for them if your peers do not see that America just did

    • Donald Trump is important, since he is the sole politician in a sea of corruption that has brought up the topic of open borders, what they cause and what he would do about it. What’s the problem, AMERICANS?????

  5. Kris Murray should be recalled. She IS WHAT IS WRONG with politics in today’s LAWLESS U.S.A. I’ll bet Anaheim is an illegal Sanctuary City. Sanctuary cities are illegall, because their very existence is counter to U.S. Immigration Law, which they outright violate. So, all city council members in sanctuary cities, are really violating U.S. immigration law and should be arrested by the local Sheriffs office subject to a fine and jail, which U.S. Immigration law requires!! Just read it!

  6. I think last time I made the mistake to vote for you Kris Murray, but I did not know anything about you.
    But now, thanks to the free speech you are trying to silence, we know what lies behind that pretty smile…. COMMUNISM
    I grew up in a communist country and I know your kind. Political correctness helps only the politicians.
    Let Trump speak! We want to know what he thinks before we vote for him so we do not make the same mistake I did voting for you.
    None of those who he called names died because of that.
    You lost my vote, and I will make a point to inform friends and people in my community. One will never know.
    Don’t you love the free speech?

    • Hi Lem, I did not agree with Kris Murray asking for a resolution against President Trump’s comments, however, I would still vote for Kris Murray because she has high standards. Lem, Please remind Cynthia Ward and Greg Diamond to vote for Donald Trump!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *