Washington Examiner Endorses Trump — Same Day Magazine’s Editor Promises Not to Vote For Him
Mandel Ngan/Getty Images
The Washington Examiner endorsed President Donald Trump on Monday — the same day its magazine editor vowed not to vote for him.
In an editorial titled, “A vote for Trump is a vote against Democrats’ constitutional norm-smashing,” Examiner claimed that although Trump is “crude, sometimes brutal, and manifestly not what most people would call ‘presidential,'” the president “is running against a man and, even more, against a party that are deeply flawed and dangerous.”
Listing several concerns over a potential Biden presidency, including his “advanced age” and the possibility that Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris becomes president, the Examiner concluded that the prime reason to vote for Trump, however, “is that Democrats are promising to change the rules of governance to secure permanent power, packing the courts and insulating themselves from voters by packing the U.S. Senate.”
“Trump’s manner and character inspire strong doubts, but when conservatives vote, they should keep in mind the damage that Democrats openly promise to inflict on our republic,” the editorial concluded. “The only meaningful way to prevent it is to leave Trump where he is.”
The Examiner’s magazine editor, Seth Mandel, wrote an article earlier in the day taking a different position, titled, “Why I can’t vote for Trump.”
Mandel — who also opposed Trump in 2016 — wrote that Trump had failed his presidential test, the coronavirus pandemic, and declared, “I also disagree with the perceived threat posed by a Biden administration.”
“The extreme direction in which his party is headed is clear. But it is less clear to me that a Joe Biden presidency would haplessly elevate those extreme elements,” Mandel argued, accusing Trump on the other hand of having built an “unhealthy” political and cultural environment.
“The Washington Examiner’s endorsement of Trump over Biden (or neither) weighed the records of the two men and their respective parties,” Mandel added. “It is a legitimate process, but I come to a different result.”
