Election Special: Trash talk. Newspaper non-endorsements. 'Dixie.' And will we really know anything next week?

By Gary Abernathy

‘You’re garbage. No, you’re garbage.’ Trash talk flourishes.

If Donald Trump wins the presidential election, it will be a victory that comes, as usual, in spite of himself.

Trump is a self-saboteur, the latest example being a relatively obscure but provocative comedian telling a stupid and offensive joke about Puerto Rico during last Sunday’s Madison Square Garden event, endangering the important gains Trump had made among Hispanic voters.

The comment caused a commotion not because anyone really cared that much in the moment, but because everyone knew that the far-left (formerly mainstream) media would amplify the comment until a firestorm was ignited. Maybe it won’t end up mattering, but who booked that guy? Why?

Fortunately, President Biden came to the rescue. Attempting to pile on criticism of the comedian’s comments, Biden — trying hard to embellish his farcical and imagined tough-guy persona — on Tuesday called Trump supporters “garbage.” That’s what he said, and that’s clearly what he meant to say, damage control from Democrats and the media aside.

Similar to Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” faux pas from 2016, the comment gave the GOP fodder for victimization and stepped all over Kamala Harris’ carefully planned “closing argument.”

Trump brilliantly made hay with Biden’s gaffe, climbing aboard a customized garbage truck and then addressing a rally in Wisconsin decked out in a reflective vest like those worn by trash collectors.

While the comedian’s joke was an unforced error, Trump supporters should remind themselves that the insult of Puerto Rico really wouldn’t matter much in regard to how the Madison Square Garden event was covered. The far-left (formerly mainstream) media already had their headlines written: “Trump Leads Angry, Grievance-filled, Racist Gathering at Madison Square Garden.” If the Puerto Rico joke hadn’t been told, something else would have been elevated to the top position to justify the media narrative.

WaPo sits it out: When endorsements are entirely predictable, a non-endorsement is barely newsworthy

Photo by Roman Kraft on Unsplash

It was big news when The Washington Post announced – just 11 days before the election – that it would not be making an endorsement in the 2024 presidential race. The Post has made presidential endorsements every year since 1976, with the exception of 1988, when it decided not to choose between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.

The Post said it would endorse no more, now or in the future, and spun the decision as a return to its roots and a choice to trust readers to make their own decisions (as readers have always done, of course). The Post, like its far-left (formerly mainstream) counterpart, the New York Times, always endorsed Democrats, so the endorsements are pro forma anyway. Nevertheless, Post employees, far-left journalists, and other Democrats are quite annoyed.

The decision was driven by Post owner Jeff Bezos, who owned up to it in a follow-up column in which he decried the fallen credibility of the news media and the need for news organizations to recapture trust.

I believe in newspaper endorsements. At every newspaper where I worked and had influence in such matters, endorsements were made. I was taught that at election time newspapers had a responsibility to demonstrate leadership, and I agreed with that.

Newspapers, by their nature, are positioned to offer recommendations on candidates based on countless hours of coverage, putting much more time and attention into following politics and government — and digging into details — than the average citizen can do. A newspaper can make endorsements on its opinion pages and still cover everyone fairly and evenhandedly in its news coverage, if it is devoted to such coverage.

But to be taken seriously, a newspaper cannot be seen as being in the pocket of one particular party (i.e. the Democratic Party), as has become the case with most major newspapers, especially those with a national reach.

Smaller newspapers had a similar responsibility and challenge. At the Hillsboro Times-Gazette, where I last served as an editor, we were often looked at as a Republican newspaper in a Republican community. Naturally, being a troublemaker, I did my best to make sure we sometimes endorsed Democrats or independents in various contested local races.

I say I “did my best,” because I also insisted that our endorsements were made by an editorial board consisting of other employees in addition to myself. But, admittedly, as the editor (and publisher for a few years) I had outsized influence. When we endorsed candidates outside the GOP, local Republicans were not happy. But I thought it was important that we be seen as independent.

That is why the Post’s decision not to endorse is really not so earth-shattering. If it had endorsed, everyone knew that Kamala Harris would be the choice. In fact, various reports indicate that such an endorsement was already written and ready to be unfurled. The big news was not that the Post would not endorse, but that the Democratic nominee would have to run without the Post’s formal backing.

Other newspapers have also decided to forego endorsements, and some people think that’s just fine. Newspaper endorsements unlikely ever actually determine winners. But they show leadership and courage and, done well and fairly, provide voters with valuable information and additional food for thought. But if fairness and balance are routinely sacrificed for predictable partisanship, endorsements aren’t very meaningful anyway, right?

Media gets Elvis’ ‘American Trilogy’ at Trump events wrong

Photo by Chris Appano on Unsplash

Donald Trump has been attacked in the media for playing “Dixie” at recent events, including at his massive rally Sunday at Madison Square Garden. Far-left (formerly mainstream) media types seem aghast that “Dixie,” the unofficial anthem of the South during the Civil War, could be played at a political rally in the year 2024.

In fact, the song they’re referring to is Elvis Presley’s version of “An American Trilogy,” a medley by songwriter Mickey Newbury consisting of “Dixie,” “All My Trials” and “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” As performed by Elvis, the trilogy is hardly a celebration of the slave-era South. Instead, it’s an ode to the end of slavery and a celebration of freedom for all.

I wrote a column about this a few years ago (of course I did) and explained the structure of the song as Elvis performed it:

The song starts out mournfully with “Dixie” – “Oh I wish I was in the land of cotton, old times there are not forgotten, look away, look away, look away, Dixieland.” It was the anthem of the South, with states being urged to “look away” from the North, to form a new union. It then shifts into the marching song of the Union Army: “Glory, glory, Hallelujah. Glory, glory, Hallelujah. Glory, glory, Hallelujah. His truth is marching on.”

So, we have the conflict set up, the song of the South versus the song of the North.

Then the orchestra grows quiet, and Elvis sings, almost a cappella … “So hush, little baby, don’t you cry. You know your daddy’s bound to die. But all my trials, Lord, will soon be over.” A melancholy flute carries the tune a few more bars before fading out.

Newbury’s original version ended there. But Elvis added a new conclusion. In Elvis’ version, the silence is broken by rumbling drums and blaring horns, and he comes bursting back with a final chorus of “Glory Hallelujah – His truth is marching on.” In the version arranged by Elvis – the ultimate southerner — the North wins, God is triumphant, freedom reigns.

You can read the whole column here.

A sign that Trump is doing well is the lengths to which the media is freaking out. From intentionally misconstruing “An American Trilogy” to focusing on a bad joke told by a comedian about Puerto Rico, it’s clearly desperation time for the far-left (formerly mainstream) media.

Election 2024: How will this all turn out?

Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

Anyone who thinks they know how the election will turn out is fooling themselves. Whether it’s Donald Trump or Kamala Harris winning the presidency or the question of which party ends up controlling the House and Senate, anyone’s guess is as good as anyone else’s.

To me, it feels like a change election, with Trump and Republicans being the beneficiaries. A lot of Republicans say it feels like 2016 – but everyone needs to remind themselves that 2016 didn’t feel like 2016 until the votes were counted.

Possibly a bigger question than who wins Tuesday will be the question of who will accept the outcome. We know Trump and many of his followers won’t accept defeat. But chances are just as good that the Democrats and the far-left (formerly mainstream) media won’t accept a Trump victory. How can they concede to someone they have identified as Hitler, a fascist, a threat to democracy? They’ll engage in whatever legal and political maneuvers they can to prevent Trump from reentering the White House, justifying it as preserving U.S. democracy for our children and grandchildren.

The only way to avoid a disputed election is for the margin of victory to be so large as to be futile to contest. That is unlikely, but possible. No one anytime soon will see a victory on the level of Richard Nixon in 1972 or Ronald Reagan in 1984, but something outside a few thousand votes in just three or four swing states would be good. Otherwise, it’s unlikely that we’ll see a concession from either side next week — and who knows how long the legal wrangling will go.

But eventually, one side will prevail. What comes with a Harris victory is entirely predictable. Despite her assertions since she was anointed to replace the deposed Biden, Harris is most certainly the same politician she has been throughout most of her career — a dedicated liberal. On cultural and economic issues alike, the policies of the Biden administration will continue, most likely amplified by an even more leftist approach.

Trump, too, is a known quantity, although there is the slightest hope that he did indeed learn something the last time around. Unlike Harris, Trump has no deep-seated guiding ideology. This time, would he actually utilize his self-described deal-making genius to accomplish some goals? Would he finally be the effective outsider businessman in the White House that many thought they were getting the first time around?

Probably not. Trump’s ego seems too overwhelming and his pugnaciousness too pervasive. A second Trump term will probably look a lot like the first, with constant bickering and battling between Trump and his supporters on one side, and his haters — Democrats, Never Trumpers and the media — on the other.

But hope springs eternal. Happy voting.

‘MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal,’ in Print & eBook

My new book, “MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal — And Other Shocking Notions,” is available on Amazon. Buy it here.

The book (actually much thicker than the illustrations above indicate — the hardcover and paperback are each 453 pages) is a compilation of many of the columns I wrote for The Washington Post from 2017 to 2023, and covers a variety of topics.

Here’s a link to our website dedicated to the book. Thank you!

Sign up or share this newsletter

Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you.