Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) wanted a laugh at President Donald Trump's expense. So at a recent campaign rally, he said Trump would rather "build his ballroom and travel with Natalie," a reference to White House executive assistant Natalie Harp, who had recently accompanied Trump during a security-related aircraft switch.
From The Atlantic:
You are reading this story only because the White House didn’t want you to.
I’ll explain. This past Sunday, Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia—who has become quite good at delivering viral campaign sound bites, slickly filmed by multiple cameras—unleashed a blistering indictment of President Trump’s leadership. Ossoff, a former documentary filmmaker who is generating 2028 buzz, denounced Trump’s handling of the Iran war this way: “While he fruitlessly drains our munitions and oil reserves, the president sleeps through his meetings. He golfs and trades stocks. See, he doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar.”
It was a pithy and well-structured attack, but not so different from the broadsides delivered daily by Democrats on the campaign trail or on MS NOW. But one new word stood out: Natalie.
The insinuation was hard to miss. Republicans called it sexist and sleazy, then something more revealing happened: instead of simply judging Ossoff's remark, much of the commentary turned toward the people objecting to it.
One Atlantic headline called the reaction "The Wrath of MAGA."
Those three words—travel with Natalie—sent MAGA world into paroxysms of rage that have yet to subside.
Natalie is a reference to Natalie Harp, the president’s 35-year-old special assistant, who is known as “the human printer” because she accompanies the president carrying a portable printer and battery pack. She uses it to print out hard copies of positive news articles, flattering social-media posts, and polling data to hand-deliver to him on the go.What Trump’s defenders heard in Ossoff’s line was innuendo. The White House tore into Ossoff. The White House aide Stephen Miller said the senator’s comments are “among the most vile things I’ve seen in American politics.” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said Ossoff is “a miserable person who hates this country.” He also referred to Ossoff as “Jon Jerkoff” and as “the biggest cuck loser in politics.” The White House spokesperson Davis Ingle referred to him as a “cringeworthy feminine theater kid” and a “lightweight loser.”
Another declared that Harp had somehow "turned Republicans into feminists." A commentary published Thursday conceded that Ossoff's attack contained misogyny, then treated it as minor compared with Trump's conduct.
Welcome back to the Referee Test!
The question isn't whether Republicans say ugly things. Of course they do. Trump himself has spent years handing opponents enough insults to fill a warehouse. The question is whether the same rulebook comes out when a Democrat throws the elbow.
Remember October 2024. Then-President Joe Biden appeared to say, "The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters," while discussing Trump supporters days before the election.
It may come down to the placement of an apostrophe, and it’s worth a parse.
The controversy centers on jumbled comments Biden made on a call with Latino voters. Biden invoked comedian Tony Hinchcliffe’s quip at a Trump rally Sunday labeling Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage” — comments that many Republicans and even the Trump campaign have distanced themselves from.
“Just the other day, a speaker at his rally called Puerto Rico a ‘floating island of garbage,’ ” Biden said, before his stumbles began.
“Well, let me tell you something,” Biden said. “I don’t — I — I — I don’t know the Puerto Rican that — that I know — or Puerto Rico where I’m fr — in my home state of Delaware, they’re good, decent, honorable people.”
And then the key line. I’ll offer three different versions which significantly change Biden’s meaning (with the key part bolded):
- “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters. His — his — his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American.”
- “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters’ — his — his — his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American.”
- “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporter’s — his — his — his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American.”
Republicans favor the first one, because it would mean labeling at least some of Trump’s supporters “garbage.”
The latter two versions would suggest this was more about something that unspecified Trump supporters or one supporter did — say, calling Puerto Rico an “island of garbage” or making various other off-color, racist and sexist remarks at Trump’s rally Sunday — rather than what many of them are. They would suggest it was just a matter of Biden not finishing his sentence or that “his” referred to Hinchcliffe rather than Trump.
Instead of letting the words stand, one analysis asked whether Biden had really said it and concluded the issue "comes down to an apostrophe."
His defense was called "entirely plausible."
Then the replay booth became interesting. The White House press office had altered the official transcript, changing the punctuation despite objections from government stenographers. While conservatives were being told they might be imagining the foul, career staffers were objecting to the official scorebook being changed.
Move ahead to March 2025. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) called wheelchair-using Texas Gov. Greg Abbott "Governor Hot Wheels." Crockett later insisted she meant Abbott's migrant transportation policies, not his disability.
Fine. Put her explanation in the story.
But the headline treatment immediately supplied a defense exhibit of its own. Republicans criticizing Crockett were described as people who had "largely remained quiet" when Trump mocked disabled people.
The foul had barely occurred before the officials were checking the other team's penalty history.
Let's go back another few years. Biden called the MAGA philosophy "like semi-fascism." One major story framed the rhetoric as part of a "newly aggressive" midterm strategy. An opinion column simply argued that Biden was correct.
Imagine the treatment if Trump described a broad Democratic political movement in comparable terms and the analysis applauded the tactical sophistication.
That's the pattern.
When a Democrat insults a conservative, we're invited to study context, intent, strategy, hypocrisy, punctuation, or whether Republicans have standing to complain.
When conservatives answer back, the response itself can become evidence of something darker: cruelty, misogyny, extremism, or the decline of political norms.
Nobody needs a monastery running American politics. Elections are rough, politicians insult each other, and voters can handle sharp elbows without smelling salts.
But journalists don't get to call one side's insult an effective political tactic and the other side's retaliation a character indictment. They don't get to excuse a foul because the victim's teammates have fouled before.
Try that in football. A referee calls, "Yes, number 22 got punched in the mouth, but his quarterback was rude in 2019." The stadium would laugh the referee into retirement.
Ossoff may even be pleased with the result. His line produced days of attention, and some political commentary has praised him for understanding how to provoke Trump and dominate a news cycle. That's politics; he deliberately threw the punch.
The problem begins when the people carrying the whistle decide the real offense was Republicans noticing.
If one team throws the punch and the other gets the flag, you don't have journalism.
You have officiating.
If you’re tired of political journalism with one rulebook for Democrats and another for everybody else, PJ Media VIP helps keep independent conservative voices in the fight. Join today for 60% off with promo code FIGHT.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member