Trump’s Rally in New York Called “Racist” in a Copy-Top Form

But there were exceptions.

What scared the mainstream so much and why was the chorus of voices incomplete? Donald Trump’s speech at Madison Square Garden in New York City, along with his wife and allies (including Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson) seriously scared the entire liberal mainstream. It wasn’t clear how to react.

And then the manual came in: (A) it was reminiscent of the 1939 Nazi rally in the same place and (B) the rally was racist and vulgar. And off it went…

Here are the headlines: Associated Press: “Trump’s MSG event was accompanied by crude, racial slurs”; Reuters: “Trump stole the show at Madison Square Garden after his allies made vulgar, racist remarks”; USA Today: “Trump rally marked by racist remarks, vitriol”; Politico: “Trump’s return home from New York sparked backlash over racist, vulgar remarks”; US News and World Report: “Trump stole the show at Madison Square Garden after his allies made vulgar, racist remarks”; The New York Times: “Trump at MSG: A final carnival of grievances, misogyny, and racism.”

The Washington Post headline was slightly (though not much) different: “Trump rally speakers shouted racist slurs, called Puerto Rico ‘garbage island’.” But then the subheading: “Trump later took the stage at Madison Square Garden and called the Republican Party the ‘party of integration.’ His campaign issued a statement denying the ‘garbage’ comment.”

Even more curious is the editorial in the Los Angeles Times: “Trump Holds Pompous, Incendiary Homecoming Rally at Madison Square Garden.” An almost positive review… In general, the split in the liberal media noted earlier has become systemic. And that part of the liberal elites who continue to push for Harris are clearly running out of arguments.

All the talk about “fascism,” “racism,” etc. is all a playbook from 2016. A playbook that didn’t work then either. And the occasional calls for Harris’s campaign to “formulate a positive agenda” fall into the void. There is simply no such agenda.

Such an agenda should have started with the recognition of the dire situation, but it was decided not to recognize this fact. In fact, it was this non-recognition that was the foundation for replacing Biden with Harris, quickly and privately. Some Democrats realized that this was a bad foundation, but it was too late.