Pure Gold: JD Vance criticizes the hypocrisy of Democrats and media over their rhetoric

Yesterday, Donald J. Trump almost lost his life. An armed gunman was waiting for him in the bushes. He had a Go-Pro camera with him to film the incident. A secret service agent spotted the muzzle of a gun through a fence and shot the gunman. The gunman fled. He was caught. And now we are slowly learning more about him and his motive.

President Trump is my running mate and my friend, but more importantly, he is a father and grandfather to people who love him very much. I want him to have many more years with his family. (And selfishly, I want many more with my own.)

I admire the president for his call for peace and tranquil. The rhetoric has gotten out of control. It almost cost Steve Scalise and many others their lives a few years ago. It almost cost Donald Trump his life twice. But I want to say something about yesterday’s news and how it illustrates the difference between spirited debate and violent rhetoric.

Here’s what we know so far: Kamala Harris has said that “democracy is at stake” in her race against President Trump. The shooter agreed and used the exact same phrase. His truck had a Kamala Harris sticker on it. He was obsessed with Ukraine’s “fight for democracy” and has absorbed many crazy views about the Russia-Ukraine war. His name is Ryan Routh and he has donated 19 times to Democratic causes and zero times to Republican ones.

How do you think Democrats and their allies in the media would react if a 19-time Republican donor tried to kill a Democratic officeholder? That question answers itself. For years, Kamala Harris’ surrogates have said things like “Trump must be eliminated” on the campaign trail. And how did her allies in the media react to the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump in as many months?

NBC News called the assassination attempt a “golf club incident.” The LA Times reported, “Trump targeted at golf club.” USA Today headlined “Hope in America” ​​and published an absurd letter to the editor claiming Trump “has himself to blame for these assassination attempts.” CNN’s Dana Bash — who just yesterday bizarrely accused me of inciting a bomb threat — said today that Harris’ campaign rhetoric did not motivate Routh, even though he explicitly echoed her rhetoric.

The PBS weekend broadcast perfectly illustrates the double standards of Kamala Harris’s media friends. After devoting 30 seconds to the second assassination attempt on President Trump, they focused on the real threat: me and President Trump, who they believe are personally responsible for the bomb threats against Springfield. Of course, I condemn those threats time and time again. And reports today suggest that they came from a foreign country and not – as the media suggested – from a crazed Trump fan.

The double standards are breathtaking. Donald Trump and I are, in their view, directly responsible for bomb threats from abroad. Why? Because we had the audacity to repeat what residents told us about the problems in their city. Meanwhile, Harris’ allies are calling for Trump’s elimination while the media publishes arguments that he deserved to be shot.

This may seem like a double standard. But on a deeper level, it is entirely consistent.

Think about Springfield. Citizens tell us there are problems. These include the undeniable truths of higher rates of car accidents, unaffordable housing, evictions of residents, overcrowded hospitals, overburdened schools, and rising disease rates. This also includes the infamous pet peeves – which again, several people have spoken about (either on video or with me or my staff).

Kamala Harris’ first strategy was to ignore these people and their concerns. Yes, she had prevented the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants, and some of them made it to Springfield. But it was a tiny town without a voice. Some of the local leaders even loved the inexpensive labor. So the suffering of thousands of American citizens was ignored.

Their next move with these stories is censorship. In Springfield, a psychopath (or a foreign government) reports a bomb threat, so they blame President Trump (and me). The threat of violence is shameful, of course, but the media seems to revel in it. They report a bomb threat, but not the rise in murders. They report the threat, but not the rise in HIV cases. They report the threat, not the schools being flooded with fresh kids who don’t speak English. They report the threat, not rising insurance premiums or the car accidents they caused. They report the threat, not the failures of Kamala Harris’ leadership.

It’s not about toning down the rhetoric. If anything, reporting on the bomb threats gives the person making them exactly what they want: attention. The goal is distraction and shame. How dare you speak in Springfield about the issues of Haitian migration? You are putting people at risk simply by discussing the issues of Kamala Harris’ policies. It’s a form of moral blackmail aimed not at protecting anyone but silencing everyone.

Springfield is the most recent, but far from the most egregious example. There was the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop being censored by BigTech. And who could forget that anyone who didn’t support Kamala Harris’s Ukraine policy was drenched in the blood of Ukrainian children. The latter seems to have had some effect on Routh – the latest would-be assassin. The message is always the same: Don’t you dare express an opinion on your country’s public affairs. The message is: keep your mouth shut.

This is the difference between a debate — even an aggressive debate — and censorship. It is one thing to attack Kamala Harris for “destroying the country,” and quite another to say that President Trump should be “eliminated.” It is one thing to criticize overheated rhetoric, and quite another to say that a former president provoked an assassination attempt on himself. It is one thing to say that Donald J. Trump’s arguments about the 2020 election are wrong; it is another thing to try to disqualify him from the election because of it.

It’s one thing to say that pets are not actually eaten, and another thing to say that anyone who disagrees is trying to kill people. Dissent, even vigorous dissent, is a great American tradition. Censorship is not.

Over the next seven weeks of this campaign, I will vigorously defend your right to speak your mind. I believe you have every right to criticize me and Donald J. Trump, even if you say terrible or untrue things about us. But when I ask you to “tone down the rhetoric,” it’s not about being nice—our citizens have every right to be mean, even if I don’t like it—or using empty platitudes.

Instead, I urge all of us to reject censorship. Reject the idea that you can control what other people think and say. Rather than silencing your fellow citizens, persuade them—whether through the power of Big Tech or moral blackmail.

I think that will improve our public debate significantly. But there is something else. If you reject censorship, you reject political violence. If you accept censorship, you inevitably accept violence in its name.

The reason is uncomplicated. The logic of censorship leads directly to one goal, because there is only one way to silence a person permanently: to put a bullet in his head.