Yesterday, Trump was interviewed by podcaster Joe Rogan, and as usual, he said crazy things. He said, for example, that there were people in this country who are more dangerous than the dictator of North Korea; they are “the enemy within,” whom he previously identified as Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff. He said days ago that “the enemy within” should be arrested and tried for treason. He also told Rogan that if George Washington came back from the dead and ran for president with Abraham Lincoln as his vice president, they wouldn’t beat Trump.
If Harris said crazy stuff like that, the press would go wild criticizing her.
Eugene Robinson, a regular columnist for The Washington Post, is baffled by the disparate treatment of Harris and Trump. He spouts nonsense so often that it is not news. She tries to make the case for reasonable and responsible policies, and the media nitpick every word she says.
What’s going on? It’s not that the media is biased; the mainstream media understand what Trump is. As one commenter on this blog wrote yesterday, “It’s okay for him to be lawless, but she must be flawless.”
Robinson wrote:
Something is wrong with this split-screen picture. On one side, former president Donald Trump rants about mass deportations and claims to have stopped “wars with France,” after being described by his longest-serving White House chief of staff as a literal fascist. On the other side, commentators debate whether Vice President Kamala Harris performed well enough at a CNN town hall to “close the deal.”
Seriously? Much of a double standard here?
Somehow, it is apparently baked into this campaign that Trump is allowed to talk and act like a complete lunatic while Harris has to be perfect in every way. I don’t know the answer to the chicken-or-egg question — whether media coverage is leading public perception or vice versa — but the disparate treatment is glaring.
This week, it became simply ridiculous.
Retired Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly — who served as Trump’s homeland security secretary for six months, then as his White House chief of staff for a year and a half — said in an extended interview with the New York Times that Trump “certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure.”
This followed a similar shocking assessment by retired Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the final 16 months of Trump’s presidency. Milley is quoted in Bob Woodward’s latest book, “War,” as saying that Trump is “fascist to the core” and “the most dangerous person to this country.”
It is hard to overstate how extraordinary this is. Two of the nation’s most honored and respected warriors, both of whom worked closely with Trump for extended periods, warned the nation about the grave danger of returning him to the White House. Respecting the tradition of keeping the armed forces out of partisan politics, neither Kelly nor Milley went so far as to explicitly endorse Harris. But they clearly intended their remarks to be understood by those who might vote for Trump as flashing red lights and blaring sirens.
The Times published audio of the Kelly interview, in which he describes how Trump “commented more than once that, ‘You know, Hitler did some good things, too.’” In a separate interview with the Atlantic, Kelly recalled Trump telling him that he wanted obedient generals like “Hitler’s generals.” Trump “certainly prefers the dictator approach to government,” Kelly told the Times.
During Wednesday’s town hall, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Harris whether she believes Trump is a fascist. “Yes, I do,” she replied — and that was the headline from the event. But news stories and commentary also questioned her decision to pivot from questions about specific policy positions — almost all of which she has already spelled out in considerable detail — to attacks on Trump and warnings about the danger he poses to our democracy.
Let’s review: First, Harris was criticized for not doing enough interviews — so she did multiple interviews, including with nontraditional media. She was criticized for not doing hostile interviews — so she went toe to toe with Bret Baier of Fox News. She was criticized as being comfortable only at scripted rallies — so she did unscripted events, such as the town hall on Wednesday. Along the way, she wiped the floor with Trump during their one televised debate.
Trump, meanwhile, stands before his MAGA crowds and spews nonstop lies, ominous threats, impossible promises and utter gibberish. His rhetoric is dismissed, or looked past, without first being interrogated.
Imagine if Harris were promising to end the war in Gaza on her first day in office but wouldn’t say how. Imagine if she were proposing a tariffs-based economic plan that economists say would destabilize the world economy and cost the average family $4,000 a year in higher prices. Imagine if she were promising a “bloody” campaign to uproot and deport millions of undocumented migrants who are gainfully employed and paying taxes. And imagine if Harris were vowing to use the military to go after her political opponents, as Trump repeatedly pledges.
Kelly and Milley are hardly the only career servicemen to sound the alarm about a potential second Trump term. Two of Trump’s defense secretaries, Marine Corps Gen. Jim Mattis and Army Lt. Col. Mark T. Esper, and one of his national security advisers, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, have also warned about Trump’s erratic performance as commander in chief.
They join a long list of civilians who worked in the Trump administration and say there should never be another one. Never has there been such a chorus of officials who served a president telling the nation that under no circumstances should he be elected again.
Oops, there I go again, dwelling on the existential peril we face. Instead, let’s parse every detail of every position Harris takes today against every detail of every position she took five years ago. And then let’s wonder why she hasn’t already put this election away.

More complaining about the referees. Zzzz.
I don’t watch tv news but from the clips I’ve seen on twitter, it looks like CNN, MSNBC, etc all have been doing nonstop coverage about how Trump and his rallies are disgusting and racist and fascist. The word “Nazis” comes up a lot.
I opened the NYT app this morning and four of the first five stories I see, right at the top of the front page, are about (1) how Trump is hugely ethically conflicted, much more so than in 2016, (2) how Trump has become increasingly disgusting and profane at his rallies, (3) the fallout from the jokes and other comments at his MSG rally, (4) how Trump has used Truth Social to promote conspiracy theories. But we seem to be stuck on auto-repeat with the complaints about how unfair the press is to Harris.
LikeLike
At the top of the site now: “Deploying on U.S. Soil: How Trump Would Use Soldiers Against Riots, Crime and Migrants: The former president’s vision of using the military to enforce the law domestically would carry profound implications for civil liberties.”
More fawning coverage by the awful NYT!
LikeLike
Do you know that Trump has been spewing this hateful stuff for weeks/months/years? Trump was even one of the most outspoken birthers when Obama was President, and his speeches the last few weeks have been appalling and full of hate toward “others”. But yay, let’s be grateful that the NYT suddenly reports on Trump’s vile, neo-fascist rhetoric as newsworthy because finally a few Republicans are critical of a single rally? That proves the NYT is anti-Trump? And as soon as those few Republicans fall back in line (today?) it will no longer be newsworthy – it will be “anti-Trump bias” again?
Journalism is reporting what is true, not a balance where one must make sure to criticize Republicans and Democrats equally.
Referees aren’t supposed to call an equal number of calls on both teams UNLESS both teams are making an equal number of fouls. If one team is sending their enforcers to cut the other players off at the knees on every other play, and the other team makes a few inadvertent fouls, a referee calls 10x more fouls on one team than the other, and NOT because that referee is “biased. Calling lots more fouls on the team that is making lots more violent fouls is the only way that a referee can be fair.
But a NYT referee would believe they were being “fair” only if they called the same number of fouls on each team. It’s not exactly comforting to know that the NYT referee WOULD call an extra foul on the violent team as long as some of the supporters of that violent team said it was okay.
Trump has been doing this the entire campaign. A few brave Republicans actually called out the nasty hate at the MSG rally, so the NYT finally thinks it is newsworthy. At least for a bit.
flerp!, I will never understand why you are so defensive whenever someone with a long history of working in journalism or expert in media criticism points out truths about the problematic coverage of Trump in the media, especially in the NYT’s daily news coverage.
Do you really not see how you appear when you denigrate Eugene Robinson and hold yourself out as having more knowledge, showing your ignorance by citing a couple articles that just confirm you completely misunderstand the bigger issue that Robinson is talking about?
Imagine if every time Diane wrote a post about what Lawrence Tribe or Erwin Chemerinsky said about a Supreme Court decision, I immediately responded to denigrate them and imply they have no idea what they are talking about, citing something that I – a non-lawyer – happened to see that doesn’t prove what I think it proves because I have completely misunderstood the points that those constitutional lawyers were making.
Eugene Robinson isn’t suffering from “dementia”. He is pointing to a real problem that you think you understand but you don’t. It’s far more complicated than what you think it is, although you are plenty smart enough to understand the complexities if you didn’t approach all criticism of the NYT with so much bias. Try to read those folks without assuming they are demented.
Because writing stories because finally, a couple Republicans are willing to criticize Trump, is the problem. When a journalist believes that it’s “bias” to make Trump’s actions a big deal unless Republicans think it is a big deal, then Houston, we have a problem.
LikeLike
NYCPSP,
Please do not address your remarks to FLERP. Please do not respond to his remarks. Please.
LikeLike
Apologies – I thought you had recently responded to my comments elsewhere (which I did not mind) and I wrongly assumed we both tacitly agreed that was okay. But if you prefer neither of us respond to any post that was started by the other person, that’s fine. And we should agree that even a single snarky “zzzzz” is not allowed. Mea culpa.
LikeLike
The difference in treatment between Harris and Trump are all part of our double standard for men and women that started at the Salem witch trials. Women are held to a higher standard, and Harris has the audacity to not only be a woman, but a woman of mixed race. I watched an interview with group of young men leaving a Trump rally that were asked about a Harris presidency. Without any reason to explain their reasoning, the consensus was that Harris just could not lead the way Trump can, and I thank God for that. She is capable of doing a much better job. The rationale of the opinion of these young men was largely based on some vague, undefined bias. “I don’t think she’s strong enough,” but she was strong enough to go after the cartels in California as a prosecutor and attorney general.
We have a long history of bias against women in this country from blaming rape victims to paying women less. When Johnny Depp and Amber Heard deconstructed their dysfunctional relationship in court, only one of them left the country due to repeated death threats. Heard moved to Europe.
LikeLike
The difference in treatment between Harris and Trump is…
LikeLike
Yup, that’s my take too, rt. It’s a duck if it looks, moves, and quacks like one. Looks like: typical experience of countless women since they started entering work fields traditionally dominated by men. Moves like: the coverage they gave Clinton-Trump race 8 yrs ago. Quacks!– in both races, the woman was running against the same very obviously unqualified candidate.
LikeLike
One of the people that knows Trump well is his official biographer who ghost wrote The Art of the Deal.
Tony Schwartz
“Starting in late 1985, Schwartz spent eighteen months with Trump—camping out in his office, joining him on his helicopter, tagging along at meetings, and spending weekends with him at his Manhattan apartment and his Florida estate. During that period, Schwartz felt, he had got to know him better than almost anyone else outside the Trump family. …
This is what Schwartz said in 2016 about Trump:
“I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”
Repeat: The Sociopath!
Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All | The New Yorker
AGAIN: THE SOCIOPATH
LikeLike