Yikes! My ‘former newspaper’ endorses Trump

3 Replies

NYPost

I mean The New York Post.

Y’all remember when I worked for the Post, don’t you? I “covered” Mark Sanford’s infamous confessional presser for them in 2009. Which is to say, I was there, and I took notes, and I interviewed a person or two after, and I called in to consult with the editor — but I did not write one word of the resulting story. Someone in New York who had watched it on TV did that. But they gave me the byline, because I was their excuse for using a Columbia dateline.

Anyway, they seem to have surprised no one by endorsing Trump in the New York primary. They say “he reflects the best of ‘New York values’,” which I suppose is one reason why I live in South Carolina:

He’s from New York; it’s from New York. He likes to grab headlines with brash comments; it likes to write them.

Now, this relationship is going to another level. Surprising few, if any, the New York Post’s editorial board has endorsed Donald Trump in New York’s upcoming Republican presidential primary.

“Trump is now an imperfect messenger carrying a vital message,” the editorial board wrote. “But he reflects the best of ‘New York values’ — and offers the best hope for all Americans who rightly feel betrayed by the political class.”…

Here’s a direct link to the endorsement.

You know how, the other day, I said something about how editorial board members tended to favor Kasich, if they favored anyone in the GOP race? And how that was accompanied by pious, self-congratulatory language about how wise editorialists tend to be?

Well, a “consensus” doesn’t mean everybody. The Post goes its own way…

3 thoughts on “Yikes! My ‘former newspaper’ endorses Trump”

  1. Brad Warthen Post author

    The endorsement is quite a monument to the human capacity for rationalization:

    • They call him a “rookie,” although one with “vast promise.”
    • They suggest voters should pay no attention to anything he does or says, because “Should he win the nomination, we expect Trump to pivot — not just on the issues, but in his manner.”
    • “No, pulling US troops out of Japan and South Korea — and pushing both countries to go nuclear to defend themselves — is not remotely a good idea.” But they endorse him anyway.
    • “Yes, controlling the border is one of Washington’s fundamental duties — but “Build the Wall” is far too simplistic a policy for a nation of immigrants.” But they endorse him anyway.
    • “Trump’s language, too, has too often been amateurish, divisive — and downright coarse.” But they endorse him anyway.

    On that last point, they add:

    But what else to expect from someone who’s never been a professional politician and reflects common-man passions?

    Wow. Condescend much? Which reminds me of the way they praise his “outer-borough, common-sense sensibilities.” So they’re saying he’s bridge-and-tunnel. It’s nice, I guess, to see any New York journalists saying that and meaning it in a good way.

    In any case, it says a lot that not even the Post could endorse Trump without a lot of convolutions along the way.

    (This will no doubt remind Bud of the endorsement he hated more than any that ever appeared in The State: The one backing Bush in 2004. We spent about 80 percent of it detailing things we did NOT like about Bush, before concluding that we didn’t trust Kerry on national security — which of course is a deal-breaker, since that’s a president’s most critical responsibility.)

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

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