Where, exactly, can Kamala Harris and the rest of the campaign go from the “Trump is a fascist and Orange Hitler” argument if it fails to convince anyone?

Calling your political rival a fascist is the card of last resort, and you only should play it if you believe that it is an actual ace-in-the-hole. Kamala Harris threw down that card on Wednesday night herself, during her abysmal town hall on CNN. It was literally the only direct answer that she gave all night.

This has been the drumbeat of the campaign for a while, but now Kamala has said it herself openly, building on the unsubstantiated and debunked story from The Atlantic earlier this week. This was then followed by campaign surrogates like Hillary Clinton claiming that having a rally at Madison Square Garden was apparently trying to re-create the 1939 Nazi rally that was held there (while conveniently forgetting it was also the site of the 1992 Democrat convention where Bill Clinton became the party’s nominee).

But while the campaign is throwing the word “fascist” around, two things have happened. First, it has been obvious for a very long time that Donald Trump is likely the most pro-Israel president that we have ever had, and he made it clear with his actions during his presidency. Now, the Trump campaign has put out an ad directly rebuking the “fascist” label and the Hitler comparisons, and it is a right hook directly to the glass jaw of the Harris campaign.
https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1849844030177161659

“Adolf Hitler invaded Poland when I was 9 years old. He murdered my parents and most of my family,” 94-year-old Jerry Wartski says in the clip exclusively obtained by The Post and set to be released Friday.

“I know more about Hitler than Kamala will ever know in a thousand lifetimes,” adds Wartski, rolling up his shirtsleeves to reveal his Auschwitz prisoner number.

“For her to accuse President Trump of being like Hitler is the worst thing I ever heard in my 75 years living in the United States,” he goes on, adding that Harris “owes my parents and everybody else who was murdered by Hitler an apology for repeating this lie.”

Asked by an off-camera questioner why the Jewish people should back Trump, Wartski responds: “Because he’s a mensch.”

“I believe that President Trump is definitely going to be good for Israel because everything that he’s done up until now was in [its] favor,” he continues, saying Trump “never double-crossed anyone and he never showed any weakness.”

Wartski, who serves as honorary president of the Israel Heritage Foundation, met Trump when the Republican nominee marked the anniversary of Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attack to offer prayers at the Ohel of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson for the release of the remaining hostages held in Gaza.

“Why should President Trump pray for the hostages at the Ohel and … spend time with so many?” Wartski asks in the video, before answering: “He has always stood with the Jewish people and the state of Israel.”

Second, the “fascist” argument is not working because the media – which the Harris-Walz campaign has depended upon to slant the coverage in their favor as much as possible – is currently in the middle of a meltdown. Apparently, those who pay the bills in the media ecosystem have realized that their approval ratings are just slightly above pond scum, but not by much. Americans, it seems, have given up on the concept of an unbiased media and no longer trust the “traditional” news sources. That may be why the Los Angeles Times did not endorse a presidential candidate this year.

The paper’s editorial board, which has endorsed Democratic candidates in every presidential race since it first endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008, was preparing to do so once again this election.

But according to two people familiar with the situation, executive editor Terry Tang told editorial board staff earlier this month that the paper would not be endorsing a candidate in the presidential election this cycle, a decision that came from the paper’s owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, a doctor who made his fortune in the healthcare industry.

The paper did not explain its decision, though it noted at the bottom of its online endorsement page that “the editorial board endorses selectively, choosing the most consequential races in which to make recommendations.”

An LA Times spokesperson told Semafor, “We do not comment on internal discussions or decisions about editorials or endorsements.”

Now, the Los Angeles Times put forward a whole slate of wacky progressive endorsements at the state level, including their support for hopefully soon to be voted out Los Angeles District County District Attorney George Gascón. This is not a committment by the paper to find some balance. This is their acknowledgement that Kamala Harris is a lousy candidate without having to say it out loud. But there has already been a public revolt at the paper, as activists who think they are serious journalists are so mad they have quit.

Veteran journalists Robert Greene and Karin Klein announced their resignations Thursday, a day after the editorial page editor Mariel Garza left in protest over LA Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong’s decision not to endorse a candidate.

Greene, a Pulitzer Prize winner for editorial writing, said in his resignation letter shared with the Columbia Journalism Review that he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision not to endorse Harris.

“I recognize that it is the owner’s decision to make,” he wrote. “But it hurt particularly because one of the candidates, Donald Trump, has demonstrated such hostility to principles that are central to journalism — respect for the truth and reverence for democracy.”

Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review that she resigned because the Times was remaining silent on the presidential race in “dangerous times.”

“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent,” Garza said. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

Garza said the board had intended to endorse Harris and that she had drafted the outline of a proposed editorial but that it was blocked by Soon-Shiong.

Soon-Shiong said in a post on the social media platform X that the board was asked to do a factual analysis of the policies of Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump during their time at the White House.

Soon-Shiong, who bought the paper in 2018 and is a member of the editorial board, said the board “chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision.”

Klein said in a statement posted on Facebook that her decision to resign also came after seeing Soon-Shiong’s post on X.

“The decision to resign was made simple and easy when he posted on X yesterday about his suggestion that the board create an analysis of the positives and negatives of each candidate and let the voters make their own decisions,” she wrote.

“News side does an excellent job of neutral analysis. That’s not an editorial,” she added.

Well, I hope these “journalists” have skills they can fall back on that don’t include working for large news gathering organizations. Perhaps they know how to code? Maybe they can work the fry station at McDonald’s? Given that the Washington Post has now just followed the Los Angeles Times’s lead and declined to endorse a presidential candidate, it appears that the job pool may be narrowing slightly for activists posing as journalists.

The Washington Post’s editorial board announced Friday that it will not make an endorsement in this year’s presidential contest, for the first time in 36 years, or in future presidential races.

After noting that the Los Angeles Times did the same thing, the article then says this:

An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two sources briefed on the sequence of events who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos — according to the same sources.

In a column published on The Post’s website Friday, Post Publisher William Lewis described the decision as a return to the newspaper’s roots of non-endorsement. The Post only began regularly endorsing presidential candidates in 1976, when the paper endorsed Jimmy Carter “for understandable reasons at the time.”

“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable,” Lewis wrote. “We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

Lewis also portrayed the decision as a “statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds.”

It seems that the “Trump is a fascist” argument is not one that swayed the editorial boards to endorse Kamala Harris. Huh.

Kamala Harris – "He's Hitler

Washington Post – "Yeah we've thought about it and we're still not going to endorse you over Hitler. Sorry."

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) October 25, 2024

And yes, the tantrums and resignations have already begun, starting with the “journalist” who DID call Trump a fascist.

Update: I’m told that Kagan, the author of the Post’s prescient piece warning of Trump and ‘fascism’, has resigned in the wake of today’s announcement that the Bezos-owned paper will not be endorsing a candidate. https://t.co/UW5K387JaW

— Susan Glasser (@sbg1) October 25, 2024

But here is the real truth of the matter:

Pay close attention to who is angry at the Washington Post today. It's a subtle admission that they believe the media exists to serve their political causes and ambitions. https://t.co/Z3lo8ZEcHu

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) October 25, 2024

Democrats, and especially the Harris-Walz campaign, were expecting the media to fall in line and repeat the “Trump is a fascist” line ad nauseam, playing that last card in the deck, to attempt to “close the deal” for Kamala Harris. You know, they way they did with “Russian collusion” or that “Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation.” The Democrats have openly relied on having the media “rig” the election and run interference for their candidate for years now. But now, with “democracy at stake,” these mainstream media newspaper editorial boards are refusing to endorse Kamala Harris as the last best hope against the “fascist” Donald Trump? So, maybe he isn’t a “fascist” after all?

Maybe, just maybe, the owners of these papers have realized that Republicans read newspapers too. And maybe they have also realized just how terrible Kamala Harris is as a politician and a candidate, and that this last-ditch argument has been a gigantic bust. Getting to watch the journalists revolt against those who sign their paychecks? That is simply the icing on the cake.

Featured image: original Victory Girls art by Darleen Click