Staff Reports
During a recent rally in North Carolina, former President Donald Trump took a moment to congratulate himself, pointing out that several major newspapers have opted not to endorse any presidential candidate this election cycle. The absence of endorsements from the notorious Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, known for their unwavering support of Democrats, led Trump to suggest that these newspapers are essentially acknowledging that they can’t find a Democrat worth backing this time around.
The audience chuckled as Trump implied that the silence from these left-leaning outlets was a roundabout way of saying he’s doing a fantastic job, even if they refuse to admit it. With a grin, he remarked that the failure to endorse anyone from the Democratic Party speaks volumes about the current state of their chosen candidates. It seems that the left’s favorite publications are finally catching on to the notion that maybe their usual heroes aren’t quite cutting it.
Trump: "You noticed that @washingtonpost and @latimes and all these papers are not endorsing anybody. You know what they're really saying, cause they only endorse Democrats, they're saying this Democrat is no good and they think I'm doing a great job" pic.twitter.com/auz6fbYooK
— 3sidedstory 🇺🇲 (@3sidedstory) October 30, 2024
In a twist befitting a soap opera plot, USA Today, along with its 200 Gannett-owned sibling publications, declared its neutrality by deciding against endorsing any presidential candidates. The paper’s chief communications officer, perhaps channeling the great philosopher Yogi Berra, stated that local races are where America’s future really gets decided – one local election at a time, mind you. This declaration can only cause one to ponder if they’re dodging responsibility or simply realizing their decisions hold about as much weight as a wet paper towel in a monsoon.
Adding a humorous anecdote, Trump referenced USA Today’s decision during his rally and implied this non-endorsement was a jab at Vice President Kamala Harris, suggesting that it simply means she’s not cut out for the job. One can’t help but chuckle at the thought that a newspaper’s indecision could carry such dire implications for the political ambitions of, shall we say, less-than-stellar candidates.
Interestingly enough, the Washington Post has now joined the ranks of indecision, marking the first time since 1988 that it hasn’t picked a presidential candidate. Jeff Bezos, the owner of this particular paper, wrote about the supposed need to avoid alienating readers through endorsements. As if readers didn’t already feel a twinge of betrayal whenever they opened the paper to find leftist commentary passing for news. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times pointed fingers at the Biden administration’s controversial management of the Gaza conflict, claiming it prevented them from making an endorsement, which just feeds into the narrative that the media is more reactionary than proactive. The New York Times, meanwhile, wasted no time awarding its endorsement to Harris, labeling her as “the only patriotic choice for president.” That’s the kind of news that leaves one shaking their head — perhaps it’s time to redefine what patriotism truly means.
