WaPo is now admitting that Trump is facing a backlash for his “you won’t have to vote again” remarks. (I’m out of free WaPo links for the month, but here’s the story on MSN.) Still, WaPo gives itself some wiggle room. It says that Democrats “interpreted” the remarks as a threat to democracy, not that the remarks were a threat to democracy. Some politics expert who was quoted called the remarks “ambiguous.” As in, “Trump frequently makes these kinds of deliberately ambiguous statements that can be interpreted in multiple ways.”
Let’s review:
Trump: You have to get out and vote. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four years, it will be fixed, it will be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore.. In four years, you won’t have to vote again. pic.twitter.com/DBGcBr3Wht
— Acyn (@Acyn) July 27, 2024
In conclusion, “In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.” That’s right off the video. There’s nothing ambiguous about that. If we take his words literally, he’s clearly saying they’ll “fix” the system so that there will be no more elections.
It’s entirely possible that isn’t what Trump meant, but if that was the case it wasn’t a matter of Trump being “ambiguous” but of Trump “mis-speaking.”
A few days ago Dan Froomkin wrote in Press Watch that media tend to cover Trump as if he is not responsible for what he says.
Reporters who know Donald Trump know that he will respond to Kamala Harris’s candidacy with racist and sexist attacks on her as a woman of color.
In fact, he’s already started.
But the way two New York Times journalists wrote about it on Tuesday, it was as if Trump has no agency – no responsibility for his own behavior.
The article cast Trump’s racist and misogynistic response to being challenged by a woman of color as inevitable and unpreventable – something like the weather or a natural disaster — rather than as a deliberate choice on his part.
Written by the Times’s two most ardent Trump-whisperers, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, the article was headlined: “Trump’s New Rival May Bring Out His Harshest Instincts.”
Note the passive construction – and the use of the word “instincts,” as if Trump has no say in the matter: It’s just Trump being Trump.
That’s letting him off the hook. The headline should have said something like: “Trump Already Engaging in Repugnant Attacks on New Rival”.
There were some comments to the last post saying that news media favor Trump because Trump content bumps ratings/readership, but that actually hasn’t been true for some time. It may still be true for Fox and OAN, but not for “mainstream” media. Most people are tired of his act. Probably even some people who plan to vote for him aren’t that keen on watching him so much. I understand attendance at his rallies is way down, too. And the favoritism isn’t limited to Trump but extended broadly to the Right.
The Washington Post, meanwhile, is blaming the culture wars. Rather than calling out right-wing attacks on Harris as racism, pure and simple, reporter Emmanuel Felton on Monday termed them “racial attacks” and situated them as part of “the broader culture war over corporate diversity and affirmative action programs.”
For Felton, the story is not that the right wing is responding to Harris with grotesque racism, it’s that “America’s fraught racial politics are set to, once again, take center stage.”
The headline on that story was another passive horror, almost putting the onus on Harris rather than on the perpetrators: “Harris’s campaign will have to contend with DEI, culture war attacks”.
I personally think this comes back to the media’s sensitivity to being called “biased.” If you tell the straight-up, unvarnished truth it makes the Right look bad, and then they scream about media bias. So whatever the Right is doing has to be sugar-coated somehow, to appease the gods of both-siderism. And we don’t know how much owners like Jeff Bezos, who owns WaPo, get involved in these news decisions.
But, yeah, at least there’s a backlash. The remarks are getting covered, and I expect Democrats to keep refreshing our memory about them.
As far as the Right is concerned, Trump didn’t say what he said. Here’s the official excuse from the Trump campaign, from the WaPo story linked above —
Asked to clarify what Trump meant, Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for the campaign, said in a statement on Saturday that the former president “was talking about uniting this country and bringing prosperity to every American, as opposed to the divisive political environment that has sowed so much division and even resulted in an assassination attempt.”
That’s not even in the ball park of what he said. It’s not even in the neighborhood of the ball park. Or the same city, even.
For another reaction from the Right, see Jazz Shaw at Hot Air.
The response was as predictable as it was dishonest and flatly incorrect. Kamala Harris’ campaign immediately characterized the speech as “a vow to end democracy.” The Atlantic said that Trump was, “telegraphing his authoritarian intentions in plain sight.” The New York Times, clearly unable to restrain themselves, declared that Trump is “planning to destroy our democracy” and he’s going to “fix himself up as dictator.” Another liberal outlet determined that Trump had “said the quiet part out loud.”
Of course, none of that was what Trump actually said and they’re all smart enough to know it.
Of course, it is what Trump actually said, and Jazz Shaw is too ideologically blinkered to admit it. And the quotes he attributed to the New York Times actually did not appear in the New York Times article he linked. He trusts that Hot Air readers won’t bother to check, I guess.
Maha, I'm not neurotypical, so, if I say anything too weird here, I hope you'll remember you've seen my nym a few times, and I don't just attack.
I honestly don't see "both sides". And here, let me pause.
"I honestly don't see 'both sides'" is a statement about me – not you. *YOU* might see something, that *I* can't see, because I'm not neurotypical (NT); and *I* might see something, that you *can't* see, because I'm ND (neurodivergent).
So, when I say "I don't see," I'm talking about my perception – and I'm admitting it's different from yours.
Okay: at this time, I don't see "both sides" as any form of good faith argument any more. There was a time when I might have, when each side would attempt to base their arguments on evidence.
If you try to Both Sides Trump's classified documents charges, what do you get?
Well, if you REALLY try to be unbiased, you say "Trump's up shit creek without a paddle and a hole in his boat, criminal-exposure-wise, and his claims that this is a partisan prosecution is belied by the specificity of the indictment, though he remains innocent until proven guilty."
But what's being reported are two completely contradictory stories, only one of which can be true, only one of which *is* true, and only one of which has any actual evidence. Now, I know, a journalist, or an editor, can be snowed one way or another, but, I don't understand snow jobs. I just know facts.
The facts are, if there was a partisan ploy to imprison Trump over classified documents, he'd have been arrested once they found the first responsive document on the floor, or in the kludgie, at MAL. They'd have had that right.
And I know, I know, blah blah blah, political considerations, former President, I'm sorry, none of that BS bothers me. I'm not one of the NTs who can be snowed with that kind of crap. I see a former President commit crimes, I see bullshit excuses get pulled out to defend it, and I see those bullshit excuses held on the same level as the actual truth?
I'm not surprised by this, because, I saw the same thing through the Iraq war, where the only thing that was at stake was a bunch of foreigners, who'd get killed in a war, and every Republican knows not to care about the body count, but to *pretend* to, while screaming bloody murder if capturing an Iraqi child causes one of Our Mighty Warriors to slip and skin their knee.
But then, I sat though Covid-19, and I noticed that there's no change when actual American lives are at stake. These aren't Iraqis, living thousands of miles away, and these aren't even necessarily *immigrants*, these are actual AMERICANS, this was an actual matter of life and death, and there was simply no difference.
You'd think if they just *wanted* to be fair, they'd be honest when life and death were on the line. But they weren't – they both-sides that just the same. How many stiffs is a 0.1% subscription retention worth? I'm only asking, because I knew newsfolk in the past who'd say "none… but sometimes, people die anyway, when we can't stop it, and YES, we make bank reporting on bad news like that, *SO* maybe next time, we'll prevent some deaths.
What's their excuse this time?
You'd think if they *wanted* to be fair, there'd be front page stories about "boats with batteries so heavy they sink, while sharks wait, 10 yards out", because our Very Stable Genius has never heard of an "outboard motor".
Anyway: that's my sunday afternoon rant on "no, I don't think it's an ethical desire to cover both sides fairly and evenly, I think they're in the tank for the clickbait, and are Gordon Gekkoing an excuse."
(I'm posting with the same nym/email, different browser, if anything looks weird.)
I haven't seen "both sides" as a good faith argument for several years, and notice that no where in this post do I say it's a good thing. It isn't. It's a false form of "balance" that too much of journalism is stuck in.
Okay – now, that makes more sense. Thanks for being patient.
"as opposed to the divisive political environment that has sowed so much division and even resulted in an assassination attempt"
If you call out Stump's lies it's the same as shooting him in the head!
I don't know whether Stump improves ratings I suspect he must, but what he does do is provide content, content that media executives are desperate for free content. Stump enables them to report the same scandals over and over again, it's a lot cheaper to put the same tee-vee show on every night over and over then it is to actually do research (pay staffers, producers, writers) and have stories about other topics. All I see across most of the cable booble-head shows is Stump, if that caused them to lose ad money they would have changed course long ago. They air what they can sell. I don't like to delegitimize the media, that is what the right has done for decades but I just don't see any real critical in depth reporting on how dangerous Stump is. After J6 they understood how dangerous his bullshit routine was and pulled way back on what they would allow. Now they replay all the hate, racist bullshit no questioned asked and as you point out at wapo and other places they don't even question if it's the truth? The only explanation for the media's kid glove approach to covering Stump is that they don't want to bury him. They need him to be viable, they don't want him to go away. Les Moonvess (CBS CEO) told us the truth in 2015 "Trump may not be good for America, but he's damn good for CBS."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJjsEyW5l6M
You don't understand the news biz. Trump is not giving the news bureaus free content. They have to send reporters and camera crews to cover him. That ain't free. And apparently it's not bringing in ratings the way it used to. The cheapest way to fill time on the cable news programs is if the staff bobbleheads can sit in the studio and interview some politician or author or whatever who doesn't expect to be paid. But I'm not seeing Trump give many interviews like that.
"You don't understand the news biz"
Maybe not but I'm pretty sure Les Moonvess did?
One more time — back in 2016, when Moonves was running CBS, Trump and his presidential campaign were an entertaining novelty, and Trump television coverage got good ratings. It got so television news covered Trump more than any other candidate. And that helped him get elected. That Trump coverage wasn't "free" then, but it was profitable. However, Trump news coverage isn't getting the big ratings any more. He probably does get better ratings than some other news coverage, but not like in 2016. Television viewers aren’t that fascinated with him any more. So do get over any notion that media favor Trump because they're making some unique amount of money off him, somehow. They aren't.
OK if they aren't making money why do they cover him almost all the time. Why do they treat him as just another nominee, the man crashed the economy, got impeached twice, burned down the Capitol, got convicted of sexual assault, found guilty on 34 felonies but they pretty much just treat him as just the republican nominee. From where I sit they seem to want him viable, they want him in the race? Outside of msnbc evening shows he's treated with kid gloves for the most part.
“OK if they aren’t making money why do they cover him almost all the time.” Well, he is the Republican nominee for president. He’s going to get covered. That’s not really so odd. “Outside of msnbc evening shows he’s treated with kid gloves for the most part.” That’s my real gripe, not the amount of coverage he ges but the kid-glove treatment. And this is mainstream news media across the board, print and cable, with the exception of MSNBC. They don’t hold him accountable when he says outrageous and stupid things. He gets away with stuff that would have gotten any other presidential candidate in history in the stocks and pelted with rotten vegetables, so to speak. And it really doesn’t make sense that all the media tycoons want him back in office. Trump has already said he plans to punish news media for the way he’s covered. Plus he’d kill the Biden economy and generally screw up the country, and the tycoons know that.
As in, “Trump frequently makes these kinds of deliberately ambiguous statements that can be interpreted in multiple ways.”
I'd paraphrase slightly: "Trump deliberately makes these deliberately ambiguous statements so they can be interpreted in multiple ways." This one hints at Trump's unspoken quality that makes him great. And make no mistake: Trump thinks he's better than everyone else.
Trump wants to campaign as a strongman. He intends to rule as a strongman. Al Capone was too subtle – he was replaced in Trump's speech with Hannibal Lecter. Trump does NOT believe in democracy if that means applying the law equally.
Trump has spoken of the "horse race" theory of genealogy. In Melania, he was looking for and found a brood mare. If Baron does not grow up to be an egomaniac and a fascist, Trump will go to his grave blaming Melania's genes. At rallies, Trump signals his audience that THEY recognize Trump actually is what kings only billed themselves to be – appointed by God to apply His will over the subjects in the kingdom. Except I'm not sure Trump believes in God, but he sure believes in his right to rule over all lesser creatures without constraint.
The problem is – there's not a majority who would buy into that malarky. Amazingly, about 40% have bought into the delusion but there's not a majority who would accept the unvarnished reality of what sort of creature Trump thinks he is. SO he hints at it and dances away from it. MAGA understands that they are in on the cult worship and they get that Trump can't say what they know out loud.
In this case, Trump WAS sending a message to his audience, the evangelical subset of MAGA. The promise: if I'm elected, we will ban abortion and contraception and drown all transgender children but I can't SAY that out loud. Does Trump mean it? IMO, no. Trump has two planks to his agenda – the rest he farmed out to Project 2025, which he cares nothing about.
1) Trump wants to end all prosecutions against him in civil and criminal courts everywhere.forever.
2) Trump wants to crush everyone who participated in bringing any actions against him at the state or federal level. That's everyone involved with bringing the two impeachments, the J6 investigation by Congress, every civil suit, the plaintiffs or prosecutor and every judge who presided without giving Trump special treatment.
Those two planks are Trump's entire REAL platform. Everything else is window dressing. Once Trump has both, he's gonna go golf. His cultists can do the rest or not. It doesn't matter. The whole country, including MAGA can burn as long as Trump has immunity and can torture the people who tried to make Trump equal.
Totally on target.
Well written, splendid, insightful. and Donna Brazile was a treat today.
I disagree with the assertion that Trump is "clearly saying they’ll “fix” the system so that there will be no more elections".
One plausible alternative explanation is that Trump just doesn't care what or who comes after him, so he doesn't care whether they vote next time or not. He has no real political agenda; he just wants to win, now (and then pardon himself for all past & future crimes).
A more sinister alternative is the possibility that Trump/GOP will allow elections to continue, but will make sure that the results don't threaten the Religious Right's political agenda. There are several ways to do this, and the GOP has been working on most of them for years/decades:
a. stack the Courts [more], to block legislation or change election results;
b. control the counting of votes to make sure that only the "right' people win
c. control voter registration so that only the "right" people can vote
d. jail, exile, or eliminate people who might not vote "right".
I suspect that someone recently told Trump that there is a long-running discussion among Evangelicals about whether voting is important, proper, or even acceptable for "true Christians". The GOP spent a lot of time & money in the 1970's to turn the disjointed, largely apolitical Evangelicals into a coherent force. For people who [think they] define themselves by their relationship with God/Jesus, politics were largely viewed as a dirty game which can only distract or detract from their focus on getting to Heaven.
In this sense, Trump is just telling them what they want to hear ("vote for me now and you will never have to risk getting dirt on your soul by voting ever again"). In that sense, it is just another empty campaign promise.
OTOH, Project 2025 contains plenty of very real proposals which seem designed to lock in one-party rule (see options a-d above)…
That may very well be what he meant, but that isn't what he said. What he said, literally, was that "the system" would be so "fixed" that voting would no longer be necessary. Again, if that isn't what he meant, he needs to come out and clarify it and admit he misspoke.
Gotta agree with elkern here. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.
Thanks for completely missing the point. You and elkhorn think it’s fine to interpret Trump’s words in some benign way rather than assume he meant what he actually said and hold him accountable for it. Yes, let’s keep “normalizing” him; that turned out so well in 2016. But before you get too complacent, do watch the video embedded in this post.
One thing I like about Trump, is his hubris combined with his increasing dementia and all the Dear Leader fear and respect surrounding him, which tries to ignore it. Anything can and will eventually be said.
Reminds me of my John Wayne-esq grandfather. One Christmas, after my teenaged sister received underwear as a gift from mom, gramps loudly told her to try it on for us all to see. That’s when we first suspected he had dementia, and that his days as family patriarch/moral enforcer were numbered. After a series of worsening episodes we had to take away his car keys and send him to a senior care home.
Unfortunately, I don’t think anybody in the GOP has the courage to do anything similar for their own family boss. I predict speeches with an ever-increasing uglitude. If he's not yet being clear enough with what's actually going through his head, just wait. He will be.
The passive voice
The instincts: when a rich white guy does it it is instincts
The straight out quotes that were straight lies, never published
All predictable