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.