Dan Rather is puzzled about why the media scrutinizes Biden for any misstatements or gaffes and seems to be gleefully stoking the “resign” story. Yet Trump says crazy and incoherent things, and the media ignores it.
He writes on his blog “Steady”:
What a weekend. You know I have seen some things in my seven decades covering American politics. I have never seen anything quite like the wrangling, hand-wringing, and behind-the-scenes gamesmanship currently swirling around President Biden. These are compounded by the one-sided media coverage against Biden. And it isn’t over yet.
One thing is for certain: If Biden stays in the race, every step, every word, every gesture will be parsed, dissected, and magnified. This is the reality, at least for the Democrats. Trump? Not so much. Or really, very little.
Case in point: On Friday, Biden sat down with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. In the transcript of the interview released by ABC, Biden said, “I’ll feel as long as I gave it my all and I did the goodest job as I know I can do, that’s what this is about.” Several news organizations and the White House took issue with the word “goodest.” According to The New York Times,the ABC standards team listened again to the audio and changed “goodest” to “good as.” According to the Times, “Mr. Biden’s actual words at that point in the interview were difficult to make out and open to interpretation.”
So here we are — one slightly hard to discern word in an otherwise coherent interview. And then there is the other guy. The one who can’t seem to string together a single coherent sentence — a fact news organizations don’t even bother mentioning any more. Try making sense of this gobbledegook from Trump’s remarks at a recent rally in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania:
“Our nation was saved by the immortal heroes at Gettysburg. Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was. The battle of Gettysburg, what an unbelievable. I mean it was so, was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways — it represented such a big portion of the success of this country. Gettysburg, wow! I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, to look and to watch. And uh the statement of Robert E. Lee, who’s no longer in favor — did you ever notice that? He’s no longer in favor. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys, never fight uphill.’ They were fighting uphill, he said. Wow, that was a big mistake, he lost his great general and uh they were fighting uphill. ‘Never fight uphill, me boys,’ but it was too late.”
What?? You may not have heard about this because it was “lightly” reported, i.e. not a word from The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN, or the Associated Press. Jon Stewart did mention it on “The Daily Show,” saying it was “plagiarized, almost directly, from my seventh-grade book report, ‘Gettysburg, Wow.’”
Why are the rules so different for these two men? Both should be held accountable for their deeds and words. But they aren’t. Trump gets pass after pass.
The Republicans have hitched their wagon to a cult leader. They are willing to do just about anything to win back the White House: lie; obliterate the rules; blindly back a convicted felon, a cheater, a sexual assaulter, a Project 2025 promoter, a dictator on day one, and an insurrectionist. Maybe they should change their MAGA caps to say “The ends justify the means.”
The Democrats have, to this point, backed the president, a decent man who has devoted his life to the service of the country. Now that the proverbial chips are somewhere near rock-bottom, the party doesn’t know what to do. Remain loyal to a man who has objectively done a very good job after the debacle that was the Trump administration, and risk Trump 2.0? Or nudge Biden out in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris or any number of untested contenders? The finger-pointing and “blames-manship” will be epic if Trump wins. Where is this headed? As my father said, “he who lives by the crystal ball learns to eat a lot of broken glass.”
But for those of us who believe in the great American Experiment — a constitutional republic based on the principles of freedom and democracy — this is what it looks like, folks. It’s raucous, sometimes ugly, painful, and chock full of anxiety. But one thing we can do and are doing is speak freely. That could all change. Imagine a world where the Trump police track down naysayers and truth tellers. He has vowed retribution, even military tribunals for his political enemies. And then he would not be subject to prosecution. In our system of government, we have the right to question our leaders. If Trump wins, that could quickly disappear.
In the confusion, uncertainty, and anxiety of the moment, and amidst all the disappointing media coverage, it is time to remind ourselves once again what is at stake in this election.
Please know that we feel your anxiety and we welcome your insights, your frustration, your worries in the comments on this forum. It’s an open exchange. All I ask is that you remain respectful to your fellow Steady readers. Please, no name-calling or foul language. I enjoy reading your comments. We desperately need this passion come November. Our democracy depends on it.

I’ve commented several times on the variations of the BIG LIE theme. One of the biggest variants playing out lately is the technique of the BIG INSANITY. It’s so humongous and horrifying and habitual that people have become desensitized to it, as if they can no longer see it at all — whether by dint of habituation or just plain fear to face the realities of it.
LikeLike
Why do you insist on judging Biden by Trump standards? Trump is obviously a nutcase – Republicans seem to like that sort of thing and everyone else is painfully aware of how bad he is. I don’t see why you care since you don’t plan to vote Republican anyway.
The point is that Democrats are supposed to be better and, more to the point, should be fielding the candidate in the best position to defeat Trump, which is why Democrats and the liberal media are much more focused on Biden. I know you think Biden is the one best positioned to defeat Trump, but that involves denying facts that are becoming undeniable, which many have been raising for a long time now. You yourself were dismayed by Biden’s debate performance, but the fear of what that means seems to be preventing you from looking at the situation honestly.
As a leftist who is unlikely to vote for any Democrat, I honestly don’t care whether Biden stays or steps aside (or is pushed aside). I’m just eating my popcorn and enjoying the show. But your obsession with defending Biden from all scrutiny and criticism – all of which is coming from liberals and Democrats – is not healthy. As always, it’s no one’s responsibility to vote for a candidate out of loyalty. It’s the candidate’s job to earn votes. Let Biden stand on his own. If polls show he’s convincing voters, then let him stay. But if not, don’t act like it’s a witch hunt when the people most worried about Trump winning are pushing against a candidate they don’t think can beat him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you referring to AOC and Bernie Sanders and the Squad when you cite Biden supporters “obsession with defending Biden from all scrutiny and criticism”? Are you mischaracterizing their support for Biden as defending him from all scrutiny? Is that because you believe the 500 negative Biden stories in the last 2 weeks are not enough “scrutiny” for you?
Biden earned their vote by his POLICIES. Of course, Biden’s “too progressive” policies didn’t earn him the support of the most conservative Dems whose voices are the ones being amplified by the so-called liberal media. The ones that sound just like you.
If there were more “leftists” like you in France, the far right would have won. Are you disappointed that France is stuck with some center-right-maybe left government, when the left could have done what you did and see that a right wing takeover might not be a big deal. Maybe having a far right government there would bring about all the positive things that happened because Trump won in 2016 instead of the Dem — the Supreme Court and all the good things that will happen with the upcoming 2025 Project is enacted.
I realize you now hold yourself far to the left of those folks like AOC and Bernie who were among the first to endorse Biden’s re-election. Your posts imply that you doubt their judgement about Biden. The left in France made their choice and you made your own very different choice. As long as you own your choice, I respect it. Blaming someone else for your own choice is unseemly.
I noticed that in France, it was folks on the left who thought it was of vital importance to stop the far right, and joined together with centrist parties, while a much higher percentage of France voters who were on the right (but not far right) switched their votes to join the far right. That is happening here, too. The squad is behind Biden. The most conservative Dems are the ones who are saying exactly what you are saying. Given your defense of Putin, it doesn’t surprise me that you are repeating the talking points of the most conservative Dems and rejecting the Dems who are most progressive.
I hope come November you don’t get to celebrate a Trump victory (or maybe I should call it a defeat for AOC, Bernie, and those progressive Dems who supported Biden). But if you do get to break out the champagne because voters rejected the progressive wing’s narrative and embraced the same right wing narrative that you, conservative Dems and the entire Republican party have pushed, Trump can thank the folks like you who decided to sit back and eat popcorn and “enjoy the show”. The ones who were entertained but not outraged or even particularly bothered by the things Trump did the first 4 years and perceive the right wing danger to democracy is merely a “show”.
In France, a high percentage of the left understood the danger. While a higher percentage of the conservatives were like this poster, happy to sit back and enjoy the right wing takeover as if it was just a “show”.
LikeLike
The media ignores the crazy things Trump says and rarely criticizes him? What universe do you live in? I reside on planet Earth and for the last eight years I’ve come across thousands of print and broadcast stories critical of Trump.
LikeLike
The corporate mediots always report his outrages in a way that says, “Oh, that’s just Trump being Trump” A manner, by the way, going back to the days of Ronnie Raygun’s constant confusions of film with reality. Ain’t he cute? And Trump has always exploited every inch of slacks they grant him, constantly pussying, er, pushing the envelope of outrage to ever new horizons of whorific conduct. But that’s just normal for Trump — no one else — and you never see a general hue and cry, much less from Rapeublicans, for him to quit any race.
LikeLike
The media may mention an outrageous Trump comment once, but they do not dwell on a Biden issue for weeks at a time. The media milked the Hunter Biden, who is not running for office, story for months to cast aspersions on Joe Biden by association. Matt Gaetz and others constantly referred to “the Biden crime family” repeatedly during this time, and it was repeated on mainstream news on a frequent rotation. The media undermines Democrats at every opportunity.
LikeLike
Where’s the media outrage about Jared Kushner’s $2 billion dollar bribe from Saudi Arabia?
LikeLike
YES!
It’s really aggravating to hear some folks here who should know better making false equivalencies.
We already know how this kind of problematic coverage in the so-called liberal media plays out when it comes to covering education issues. It MAKES A DIFFERENCE and has made it much easier for the privatization movement to gain credibility.
Public schools are covered like Biden: Hammer the public over the head by amplifying any problem with public schools into a major crisis where public education is presented as dangerous and doing great harm to kids (with a disclaimer that some biased union rep disagrees). AND all but ignore all positive news that doesn’t fit into that narrative that public education is bad.
And charter schools are covered like Trump and the Republicans. Bad news is a one day, “both sides disagree about whether this is even bad news” story, where something presented as “maybe negative, maybe not” happened that really isn’t a big deal at all. But anything positive is amplified in news stories which ALSO get to dis public schools and advance the “public schools are failures” narratives because they aren’t getting these miraculous results.
It isn’t a “conspiracy” to point out that the media influences public opinion, it doesn’t just report it.
Fox News is proof of that.
LikeLike
Is it a deliberate double standard to favor Traitor Trump over Goodest Biden.
I mock the grammar Nazis and the US MAGA Christian Nationalist fascist cult by using goodest in place of most good when using an adjective to compare Biden to Trump.
“Gooder” and “goodest” are colloquial or nonstandard comparative and superlative forms of the adjective “good.” They are often used informally in spoken language, particularly in casual conversations and informal writing. These forms, although not recognized in formal grammar, have found their way into certain dialects and regional speech patterns, contributing to the rich diversity of the English language.
Discover the Surprising Truth About ‘Gooder’ and ‘Goodest’ – Are They Real Words? | Regretless
(nonstandard, humorous) Superlative form of good: most good
Goodest Definition & Meaning | YourDictionary
LikeLike
“They are often used informally in spoken language, particularly in casual conversations and informal writing.”
Uh, no. There are lots of COMMON deviances from standard English, such as confusion of imply and infer or use of the objective case personal and relative pronouns where nominative case ones are required by SE, but these are not among the “often used” deviations from SE.
LikeLike
cx: deviations
LikeLike
In any case, you and I both know that he said “good as.”
LikeLike
Yes. He did.
LikeLike
I heard “goodest,” but it doesn’t really matter.
LikeLike
I like “goodest.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, we should embrace it. It has a nice sound.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, false reporting like the “gooder” story is going to be all too frequent from now on in. It’s terrible, and NYC PSP is right about how terrible it is, but Flerp is also right that it’s not going away. Things look quite dark right now. We need Kamala to lift all this, to energize the party and the campaign.
LikeLike
When Trump was first running, he played the media like a fiddle, and they reported on every bat brained thing he said . I think the media’s now backing up and realizing THEY made this monster by over publicizing him. In the end, people don’t remember the negative, they just remember they heard the same name over and over.
LikeLike
The media covered most of Trump’s rallies in 2020 and gave him oodles of free campaign coverage.
LikeLike
And not one of the stories was “Trump said this outrageous and disgusting thing at the rally and Americans everywhere are demanding he step down before he does a lot more harm to the country.”
The stories were “Trump said this and his fans cheered.”
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Trump could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue tomorrow and the NYT would write one or two stories giving just the “both sides facts” as NYT so-called “journalists” present them: (Trump shoots someone, partisan Dems object, but many people say Dems are just complaining because they hate Trump) and then implicitly inform readers that is it time to move on to a story that IS very concerning and is of vital importance – Biden said gooder and there is strong bipartisan agreement that Biden is unfit for office and a dangerous and risky choice. Then NYT’s reporters proudly say “but Trump complained about us reporting that he shot someone, and Biden complained about us writing a story about how he is definitely unfit for office and a danger to this American republic, so we are doing an outstanding job being fair and balanced!”
LikeLike
The media doesn’t ignore Trump, so much as it normalizes all the insanity, which has been pointed out time and time again. Bottom line is that the Joe Biden pile-on is great for business, and the media will continue to elevate each perceived gaffe because Joe Biden’s recent behavior is not considered “normal” for him. Have to keep things interesting and exciting for the next few months, so why not just keep up with the Joe Biden take-down? The worst part (besides the obvious) is that the media has no interest in four more years of Biden. They see it as four years of boring and IMO that’s why they continue to focus their laser sights on Biden. A Trump presidency practically writes itself, giving them more material than they know what to do with, to the detriment of the country, democracy, and all of us. We can’t fall for that trap and let MM steer the narrative, and as someone who did sit through the debate and wished it had gone differently, I had to force myself to pivot back and ask why the media chooses to continue to put Biden under this kind of scrutiny, and why they are trying to throw him under the bus. So they found a few Dems that want him to quit. So what? What about the other 200? Yes, he’s old. Congress is old, full of old, white men. The media wants Trump. Great for their bottom line, and terrible for the country. Ignore them.
LikeLike
Chaos and anxiety equal cash in the bank to the media, most of whom are not patriotic citizens. They are corporate driven cash cows. Another stable Biden term makes them less money.
LikeLike
You are correct, retired teacher. I love your intelligent and SANE comments.
LikeLike
“The media doesn’t ignore Trump, so much as it normalizes all the insanity”
Spot on. And it’s not just Trump. The radical Christian right Supreme Court is also normalized, and my guess is that the normalization of the 2025 Project is next. “We reported it once or twice and it’s of so little consequence that it’s time to write 100 or 1000 stories about what you SHOULD be concerned about: Biden’s age. HRC being so “corrupt”. Kerry and Gore’s “lies”. Dukakis riding a tank.
LikeLike
I can ignore them (g-r-r-r), but can those voters who are still debating what to do? After all, we used to be able to pay attention to the media and know we able to get a reasonable picture of what was going on. No more.
LikeLike
Imagine being an undecided voter. Imagine the mentality of someone in a swing state who’s unsure whether to vote for Trump or Biden. Or RFK or Biden. It’s not easy. One must assume that undecided voters see things *very* differently than people who have never had any doubt that they would vote for ANYONE against Trump.
This is why we have to consider the possibility that the arguments put forward by the Biden faithful on this blog — such as, “Biden has been amazingly successful as a President, why would I have any doubt about his mental acuity?” or “Trump is such an existential threat that I would vote for a cabbage against Trump” — are not likely to resonate with these voters.
LikeLike
What mystifies me is that anyone thinks that a low interest voter who is still “considering” whether to vote for Trump will want to vote for Kamala? Or any Dem.
If they are even CONSIDERING voting for Trump, then lack of cognitive function is clearly not disqualifying. So it’s more likely to be the “scary libs” narratives and the demagoguery that appeal to them which will be used agains any Dem.
I think if Biden would stop being smeared as a near-vegetable who would put our country in severe danger if he wins, the campaign could introduce Kamala to the voters who liked Biden but might have some reservations about her if something happens to Biden.
Which candidate is going to galvanize young people who don’t like Trump to vote? That’s the question regardless of the candidate.
And I think whoever the nominee is, it will be up to cool young surrogates to make the point.
I think Trump threats will keep her out of politics this year, but if Taylor Swift decided that she may be having kids soon and the one thing she wants to prevent is Trump and the right wing taking over this country, she could do it single handedly. A pipe-dream, of course, but she is the single person who could carry it off.
When is she old enough to be president?
LikeLike
We keep losing the most important point here. This race is not about personalities. It is about whether we value democracy and the rule of law or whether we prefer an autocracy. Given that it is far too late to democratically survey the country again and change our nominee, the choice is between a Biden or Trump presidency. I choose democracy. I made my choice in March during the primaries. Funny how no one else emerged as a candidate then. Where was the groundswell of party dignitaries telling Biden to step aside?
LikeLike
NYCPSP, an hour ago or so you got upset and told me to leave you out of my comments. The best way to ensure that happens if for you to not respond to my comments. I’ve asked you to do this before to no avail, but I’m putting the idea back on the table. In exchange, I would agree to not respond to your comments. This would improve the comment section significantly, given how much space is currently taken up with long, vituperative exchanges. Give it some thought!
LikeLike
I am posting in a thread started by speduktr. It’s not a direct response to you, merely my thoughts on the conversation, and I am surprised you found a way to take offense to that comment when you could have just ignored it. It certainly wasn’t insulting nor even responding directly to you. If you tell me what upset you so much, I can try to refrain from doing that again. But it seems odd that I can’t engage in a thread started by speduktr.
LikeLike
It seemed you were responding to my comment. If not, fine. But the offer still stands. If you don’t want me to refer to you in my comments, don’t respond to my comments. I would do the same for you. Everyone would benefit.
LikeLike
Dan- an exceedingly accurate and thoughtful statement
LikeLike
Bravo, Dan Rather!
LikeLike
For much of my life, I thought that I had the stuff to be President, though I had no interest in pursuing a career in politics. I thought, well, I’m smart, well-informed, knowledgeable about economics and social science and history and geography and business and international affairs and the law. I’m a compassionate guy with good values. I have enormous experience managing very large and complicated operations. Hubris? Maybe. Douglass Adams infamously pointed out that anyone who wants to be president should be, ipso facto, disqualified for the job, and he was right.
But now I am, I think, too old for this job. I am 12 years younger than Biden is, but already, I use a cane for walking (I have diabetic neuropathy). I have seen a falling off in the speed with which I can do math and logic problems. I sleep much more than I used to. I tire pretty easily, even though I exercise. I am experiencing declines in my short-term memory. I am 12 years younger but think myself, at my age, too old to do that job effectively. I know that I could no more go back and do the editorial project management jobs I was doing in my 50s than I could fly by flapping my arms.
People age at differing rates. But–12 years? My mother was a homecare nurse. She often had me go provide company for her elderly patients. I know what age is about.
The presidency is “No country for old men.”
LikeLike
That old man has already successfully led the country for almost four years. His team seems to think he can continue to do the job. If his health takes a precipitous turn, which is not in evidence according to the medical professionals (unless you think they are all lying like Trump’s), then he has a more than capable vice president. I suspect the Black caucus may be looking at it the same way. Kamala Harris has taken on some major initiatives in the first term and will only continue to grow in the second. I hope that if Biden completes his second term, Harris is in a position to become the first woman president.
LikeLike
Yes! Thank you speduktr!
This isn’t anything close to an RBG situation (although the people invoking her seem to believe she was a vegetable from 2013 to 2020 instead doing all sorts of good on the Supreme Court the way Biden is doing all sorts of good as president despite being old.)
There would have been no good reason for us to demand that an influential RBG retire in 2013 because she was losing energy and some of her cognitive sharpness if the Supreme Court worked like the presidency and RBG had “vice-justice” Ketanji Brown Jackson who got to spend the next few years learning from RBG before she took over in a year or two. RBG remained an important presence on the court, especially in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 – she still had a lot of wisdom and I think her presence on the court those years had some influence. She was NOT a vegetable. She could still do an important job, and I would have been fine with her doing that job another few years if a guaranteed great successor like Ketanji Brown Jackson had more years to learn from her.
I am sure I will get attacked, but I think Biden knows the best way to get Kamala Harris as president is to run for re-election and eventually step down. I think people underestimate what David Roberts calls “the ambient racism & mysogyny in the US”, but Biden doesn’t. I’d like to say that Kamala could rise above it, but if anything, Trump has made racism and mysogyny acceptable in a way it wasn’t when Obama was running. I think she might have had difficulty winning an open primary and if she managed to do so, then the division would be used to destroy her even more.
If the so-called liberal media showed any sign of changing their anti-Dem bent, I would feel differently.
I think anyone who really likes Kamala Harris would definitely vote for Biden because they know she will likely take over as president.
So I don’t get why there is an argument that people who are energized for her would only support the ticket if she were the presidential nominee instead of the VP nominee with the guy who’s supposedly an inch from death’s door.
LikeLike
Yup. And if Biden serves as president for his full term, Kamala Harris will be that much better prepared to be president. I can’t imagine that the Republicans will be able to field a candidate that isn’t tainted by Trump and the radical right fringe in four years.
LikeLike
i just heard the news on the radio emphasizing that Biden was giving a speech via teleprompter. As if that’s a big deal. As if no other president has ever done it. AS IF TRUMP DOESN’T DO THAT ALL THE TIME.Argh!!!!!
LikeLike
All presidents use them, but Biden relies on teleprompters more than any President I can remember. Bernie Sanders referenced this a couple days ago when he said that Biden needs to “turn off the teleprompter.” This is part of the narrative that has developed since the debate that Biden cannot function without a teleprompter. So you’re going to see constant references to his use of the teleprompter unless he starts showing he can perform in public settings without them.
It’s not necessarily fair—I think someone could be a good president without having good public speaking skills—but this is the bar that’s been established. Count on it not going away.
Trump uses them but Trump also will talk for an hour or more with no teleprompter. It will be a wild ride and it won’t make a lot of sense, but he does it.
LikeLike
Trump talks nonsense and garbage without a teleprompter.
When he goes off script, he sounds like a madman.
LikeLike
Can you imagine the outcry if for only 2 minutes, Biden sounded like Trump does for nearly the entirety of his speeches? Biden would be forcibly committed.
LikeLike
true that
LikeLike
Do they actually believe that they get up there having memorized their speeches?!
LikeLike
I think they DO think that others don’t use a teleprompter. And just speaking random gibberish, as Trump does BOTH with AND without a teleprompter, is no feat.
LikeLike
Although I deeply disagree with Biden’s support of what Israel is doing in Gaza, I understand that Donald Trump would be unequivocally worse. I will vote for Biden if he is the candidate. I’ve stopped worrying about his age; I know if he had any kind of health issue, Kamala Harris or any other Democrat would be a more than capable replacement- and far, far better than any MAGA candidate. Democracy defends on all of us coming to this realization.
LikeLike
Don,
You make a good point. First, Trump would be far worse than Biden on Gaza; Trump doesn’t care what Netanyahu does. Did you notice in the debate that he called Biden a “Palestinian”? He will bring back his Muslim ban.
LikeLike
Duh. The answer should be clear to anyone who has kept track of the consolidation of the media to where now most of the major media is controlled by just a few corporate conglomerates. These cautious conglomerates know that Trump has at least a 50/50 chance of being elected and that, if elected, he will wreak revenge on any news organization and its corporate parent that reported anything critical about him.
Long gone are the days of Walter Cronkite — and what we have today is as much the fault of the Democratic Party as the Republic Party, because both parties are in thrall to corporations for campaign money and have for many decades ignored monopoly laws that would have prevented the consolidation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s only natural, that these, preferential news anchors, reporters would, focus on the “good things” that the candidates they supprt are, even if, the candidates are, completely, corrupt, and if elected, can destroy democracy for good, and, it’s due to these, media coverages of these, immoral candidates that will, get them, a higher chance of getting elected into office, due to the, “maximum exposure” of the candidates on air.
LikeLike
guys want to talk about double standards and hoaxes let’s go over them. Russia hoax, neo Nazis fine people, smollett, bubba Wallace garage, Covington kids, gov Witmer kidnapping plot, kavanaugh rape, Trump pee tape, Covid leak, Border agents whipped migrants, Steele dossier, Russian bounties, bleach scam, hunter Biden laptop Russian , Cuomo best covid leader, ivermectin horse dewormer, cloth masks prevent covid, vaccines help, Trump mocked reporters disability, stupid people military comment.
SO much more, all lies debunked, so let’s stop with double standards and this fake media.
LikeLike
Ms. Right,
I can’t fact-check all your claims, so I took the easiest one: Trump mocks reporter with disability: https://youtu.be/PX9reO3QnUA?si=POlH4x17YIL61FUe
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ms. Right,
I distinctly remember Trump saying about the Charlottesville white nationalist rally that there were “fine people on both sides.” The Washington Post did the research. Yes, Trump denounced hatred. At a news conference after the event, where a young woman was murdered by a white supremacist, Trump said:
“We’re closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia,” he said, reading from prepared remarks. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence” — he looked up and spoke off-the-cuff — “on many sides. On many sides. It’s been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump. Not Barack Obama. It’s been going on for a long, long time.”
At a news conference a few days later at Trump Tower (the one I distinctly remember), this happened:
“The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement,” Trump insisted when asked why he waited so long to denounce the neo-Nazis. “But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the fact. And it takes a little while to get the facts.” He insisted that he didn’t “want to go quickly and just make a statement,” the same argument he used with Tapper in 2016. “As I said on, remember this, Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence,” he added, again skipping the “many sides” part. “You said there was hatred and violence on both sides,” a reporter pointed out. “I do think there is blame — yes, I think there is blame on both sides,” Trump replied. “You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.” “The neo-Nazis started this thing,” a reporter pointed out. “They showed up in Charlottesville.” “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group,” Trump said. “But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He later expanded on this. “You had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?” Trump claimed. “And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats — you had a lot of bad people in the other group, too.” Trump later suggested that at the nighttime rally on Aug. 11, an event entirely populated by white nationalist or neo-Nazi groups chanting antisemitic slogans, there were “people protesting, very quietly, the taking down the statue of Robert E. Lee.” He said there might have been “some bad ones” there, too, as there were at the Unite the Right rally. But the white nationalist rally organizers “had a permit,” he noted. “The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story.” It is true, as the Snopes headline indicates, that Trump said that he was not talking about the white nationalists when offering praise for some of the participants in Unite the Right. But as The Washington Post’s Fact Checker pointed out in a 2020 assessment of the controversy, it’s not clear that there were any participants who weren’t allied with the white nationalist elements that announced the rally in the first place. The Washington Post reported Aug. 10 that there would be a “white nationalist rally” in Charlottesville; does someone who attends a white nationalist rally deserve rhetorical distance from white nationalism? The reason that “very fine people” lingers over Trump is that it is a shorthand for his eagerness to downplay the explicit pro-Trump, white nationalist origins of a protest that led to a woman being killed. He was “exonerated” to the extent that he said he was not talking about the white nationalists but, instead, about theoretical people who joined a white-nationalist-led rally. He was not exonerated on assigning blame for the brawling to both neo-Nazis and those protesting the neo-Nazis. He was not exonerated for suggesting that Heyer’s death was part of violence on “many sides.” He was not exonerated for suggesting that the counterprotesters’ lack of a rally permit somehow established moral equivalence with those they were protesting. Incidentally, it’s also not true that Tapper ever “debunked” Trump’s comments. In the 2019 CNN segment linked by Trump’s team on Truth Social, Tapper goes on to raise the same point made above. “Again, he didn’t refer to Nazis as very fine people. He referred to the people protesting with the Nazis,” Tapper said. “And I don’t know who are the good people there. Friday night was ‘the Jews will not replace us.’ Saturday, somebody was killed. At what point were there good people there?” Trump’s team didn’t include that part in the video it shared.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/what-trump-said-with-his-very-fine-people-comments-vs-what-he-meant/
LikeLike
Diane what boggles my mind because you are a smart person. This story was a lie 7 years ago if you just took the time to listen to the whole thing . Even left liberal leaning snopes finally debunked it 7 years later. You and Biden keep looking foolish regurgitating it. Biden lied more than anyone on stage. He lied about his grades and degrees, he’s plagiarized over and over.
WHEN CNn, msnbc, abc, etc spew the same lies for years you believe it .
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
LikeLike
Ms. Right,
I trust my own eyes and ears more than someone else’s interpretation.
What did you think of the video of Trump ridiculing a reporter with disabilities? Did anyone debunk it?
LikeLike
You, like a lot of your fellow Trumpanzees, have an astonishing ability to pretend that that which we all saw with our own eyes, heard with our own ears, never happened. If Trump says it didn’t happen, then poof!, it goes down the memory hole. Thanks for the list of utter bs that Trump has said and done.
LikeLike
That’s a long list, but doesn’t really address the topic at hand. Nevertheless, if we were to discuss the “fine people” remark, you are correct about Snopes. The problem with Snopes, which probably wasn’t intentional, was that the “debunking” was lacking in context about what that remark really meant. Here’s the context: the rally was organized and attended by Neo-Nazis. Not wanna-be Nazis, not Nazi-curious, actual Neo-Nazis. The other side were counterprotesters, some of which committed violent offenses (and most did not) because they obviously were upset at the presence of Neo-Nazis. So here are the two sides of “fine people” mentioned by Trump. The problem is, who are the “fine people” that hang out with Nazis but who aren’t actually Nazis? Trump manages to twists himself in knots trying to come up with the “both sides” theory, but in the end, there are only Nazis. If you can come up with a description of a Nazi hanger-on (the fine person on the other side), I’d like to know what it is. So, therefore one can only conclude that even if Trump doesn’t use the exact language, the only “fine people” on the side of the Nazis are…..Nazis.
LikeLike