Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post Attempts to Hijack Donald Trump’s Veepstakes After Years of Bashing Him

The New York Post editorial board on Monday published an extremely curious piece advocating that former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president who will formally accept the party’s nomination in July at the Republican National Convention (RNC), make certain picks for his running mate and avoid others.

The Post, which News Corporation’s Rupert Murdoch controls, went all in for North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) offered up as a backup option, and went all in against Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH), who has been emerging in recent weeks as a top contender. This comes from the same Murdoch empire that continues to employ and promote former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who, on June 11, went on another of Murdoch’s properties, the Fox News Channel, to bash Trump as “unfit for office.” So, anyone can be excused for thinking the New York Post‘s “advice” for Trump comes off a little bit — oh, what’s the right word? — sanctimonious.

The Post’s editorial board published this headline on Monday night: “Gov. Doug Burgum is Trump’s best choice for VP, but Sen. Marco Rubio’s a strong runner-up.”

The arguments for Burgum and Rubio are similar to what others have argued for, but the arguments against Vance are particularly disturbing and just plain wrong. And coming from the very same New York Post editorial board that has spent the past several years across several editorials arguing that Trump is the past and needs to be gotten rid of, it raises serious questions about the actual motivations of the newspaper and the people who control it.

Here is the Post’s argument for Burgum:

He’s sharp as a tack, a real doer when it comes to business deals (reinforcing Trump’s brand) and knows his way around the tech world.

He ran several successful companies before ably leading his state — the only one of the three with real executive experience.

And his views largely overlap with Trump’s: On abortion, for example, he’s fully down with letting states decide the rules for themselves; he’s every bit as much a hawk on the border and certainly recognizes the threats from China and Iran, which he directly blames for Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.

Then, here is the Post’s argument for Rubio:

We’d put Rubio next: At 53, he’s an experienced political hand, having represented Florida in the Senate for nearly 14 years and serving as Florida’s House speaker before that.

And he’s plainly learned a few lessons from his own 2016 prez run.

He was already breaking with stale GOP orthodoxy then, and has continued to prioritize the interests of the working-class voters that Trump’s own magic so speaks to.

Plus, he’s got a photogenic family and, as the son of Cuban immigrants, would likely add to the ticket’s appeal to Hispanic voters.

All of those things are generally true about both of them. There are ups and downs with any selection, but those mostly positive points in either Burgum’s or Rubio’s favor are generally accurate and all fine. Okay.

But then, the Post’s editorial board very curiously takes out its long knives to try to bash Vance — and it makes some odd arguments in so doing.

Here is the newspaper’s argument against Vance for vice president:

Vance, by contrast, sought to suspend all US aid to Ukraine, and his opposition to abortion goes well past Trump’s.

The former Marine turned tech venture capitalist and author is yet to complete even two years of public service.

Fair enough that at 39 he’s still evolving, but he makes us think of what Ann Coulter might be like if she’d gone into elective politics: plenty bright, solidly right — but a bit erratic.

Young and ambitious, he seems the most likely to compete with Trump for attention, destabilizing the campaign.

There are a few points to consider here. First off, regarding abortion, Vance, during the 2022 Senate campaign he won in Ohio, took the same position as most Republicans nationally did, which was a 15-week ban offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Rubio and Burgum, believe it or not, both went much, much further, with Burgum signing into law a bill that bans most abortions in North Dakota and Rubio backing Florida’s six-week ban in addition to previously, way back as early as 2010, signing a questionnaire supporting banning all abortions via constitutional amendment unless a pregnancy threatened the life of the mother. So, Vance’s position on this issue is actually far more in line with Trump’s position — Trump supports letting the states decide whatever they want — than Burgum’s or Rubio’s positions. Nonetheless, no matter who Trump picks, Democrats are going to weaponize abortion — they’re currently bastardizing Trump’s position on the issue on a daily basis anyway — because it is the only issue of any national significance that Democrats are not completely underwater on. If it is Rubio or Burgum, expect the exact same attacks as if it is Vance or if it is Dr. Ben Carson or Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) or South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) or House GOP Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY) or anyone else. This issue is baked into the election as a surefire Democrat attack line, and, whoever Trump picks, they will be lambasted by the left on it. Count on it.

Secondly, on Ukraine, Vance is also much more aligned with Trump than basically anyone else, as he made clear in countless public appearances — including most recently in an interview with Breitbart News in Detroit at Turning Point Action’s People’s Convention in June. Vance believes there should be an end to the whole thing, and Trump said the same in his speech in Detroit, arguing he would negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine before he even takes office if he wins in November. Watch Vance’s interview with Breitbart News from the Detroit event for more clarity on this — he and Trump are in lockstep on Ukraine and Russia.

WATCH:

Next up, criticizing Vance for not having a long record is fine, but what voters can see from Vance’s record in the U.S. Senate so far over two years seems very solid to Trump supporters and conservatives. There is a reason Vance won the Turning Point Action People’s Convention veepstakes straw poll so decisively: Trump supporters know he is effective, and his record shows it. He has led efforts to combat the weaponization of government and pushed bipartisan efforts to reach out to America’s working class, especially in the aftermath of the East Palestine train derailment disaster, and pushed a populist worldview on everything from American manufacturing to immigration to trade to war and more.

The final argument from the Post, that Vance would “compete with Trump for attention,” potentially “destabilizing the campaign,” is such utter nonsense unworthy of publication in any serious news outlet. Vance has, if anything, emerged as one of Trump’s most effective defenders in media and was the first major Republican to appear alongside him at the New York courthouse for the sham trial in May — and then, Vance was followed by a procession of other GOP well-wishers for Trump in the immediate aftermath of his visit there. Vance has also proven himself to be adept at arguing effectively with establishment media figures, communicating Trump’s vision clearly in television interviews and on social media.

Either way, the decision on who will be vice president ultimately rests with Trump himself. Trump has suggested he will make a decision soon, around the time of the RNC, which is in July in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. There are plenty of fine choices out there for Trump, a luxury of riches in a growing party and movement — and, again, Burgum and Rubio are not bad options at all. But the Post’s very curious decision to try to trash Vance would suggest that Vance is probably a lot further along than anyone realizes, at least at this point, and might even be the favorite. The powers-that-be in Murdoch’s world seem increasingly desperate to stop a true populist nationalist in Trump’s mold — Vance more closely resembles Trump’s appeal to working-class voters than almost anyone else in the GOP today — from stepping up to be next in line after Trump. And why might that be? Probably, it would seem, it is because the very same New York Post editorial board spent the last several years since Trump’s presidency trying to trash Trump and stop his return to the White House. Now that they have failed to stop him from winning the GOP nomination, they have moved on to the next best thing: Ride out the next four years of Trump-ism and pray for a return to the old-guard GOP establishment way of doing things afterward.

On January 6, 2021, the day of the riot in the U.S. Capitol, the Post’s editorial board began what would be a years-long effort to attack Trump. The newspaper ran a giant editorial blaming Trump for the riot, headlined, “Madness storms Capitol Hill: It’s time for America’s center to stand strong.”

In the second paragraph of the piece, the New York Post said Trump himself was to blame: “And while the roots of this madness were many, with some blame across the spectrum, it’s fundamentally on President Trump.”

In July 2022, the newspaper ran an editorial headlined, “Trump’s silence on Jan. 6 is damning.” In it, the Post echoed the talking points of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her January 6 Committee. Here is what the New York Post wrote in that editorial:

As his followers stormed the Capitol, calling for his vice president to be hanged, President Donald Trump sat in his private dining room, watching TV, doing nothing.

For three hours, seven minutes.

There has been much debate over whether Trump’s rally speech on Jan. 6, 2021, constituted “incitement.” That’s somewhat of a red herring. What matters more — and has become crystal clear in recent days — is that Trump didn’t lift a finger to stop the violence that followed.

And he was the only person who could stop what was happening. He was the only one the crowd was listening to. It was incitement by silence.

In August 2022, the Post ran an editorial that urged, in the headline, that “Republicans must move beyond Trump” that argued that the FBI raid on Mar-a-Lago makes Trump an “albatross” to the GOP and that the party should ditch Trump for somebody different as the GOP nominee for president in 2024.

In March 2023, the New York Post ran this headline for an editorial: “Trump won’t change, and that shows he can’t win.”

In November 2022, the New York Post ran this headline for an editorial bashing Trump’s dinner with Kanye West upon his campaign launch: “Trump puts his ego before everything.”

In December 2022, when Trump rolled out digital trading cards of himself, which incidentally sold out very quickly, the New York Post called Trump a “con artist” and urged people to never give him money again in this editorial headline: “Don’t give any money to con artist Trump.”

The New York Post, even in September 2022, accused Trump of spreading violence in this editorial headline: “Memo to Donald Trump: Stop the threats of violence.”

Then, later, when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis entered the 2024 GOP presidential primary field against Trump, the Post’s editorial board went all in for DeSantis against Trump. The Post published this headline the day after DeSantis entered the primary field: “Ron DeSantis gives America the chance to move on from its punch-drunk stupor.”

In that piece, the newspaper argued that “almost nobody (except Trump and Biden) craves” a rematch between Trump and Democrat President Joe Biden and that DeSantis would help “dodge” such a fight. The Post called Trump’s early attacks on DeSantis the height of “absurdity” and argued he was ineffective in them — something that obviously turned out not to be true, given that DeSantis got absolutely blown out in the first state, the Iowa caucuses, and dropped out even before the New Hampshire primary.

But this divorce from reality from the Post’s editorial board did not stop the newspaper from cheerleading for DeSantis against Trump all year. In October 2023, when it was abundantly clear the DeSantis campaign was going nowhere fast and Trump was completely dominant, the Post editorial board tried again to revive DeSantis with this headline: “Ron DeSantis explains why Republicans will start looking beyond Trump: He’s toxic for too many voters.”

So, with all of that said, maybe the New York Post should sit out the veepstakes and let the actual adults in the Republican Party have this debate — not the petulant anti-Trump children — and let Trump make up his own mind on who his running mate is going to be.