New York Times Wants Only Women For President
New York Times Wants Only Women For President
A paper that’s been around as long as the New York Times should know how endorsements work. The editorial board is supposed to choose the candidate that they think is the best. Newsflash, NYT – you’re not allowed to vote twice for president.
However, in a totally clueless and gutless move, the New York Times decided to endorse BOTH Senator Elizabeth Warren AND Senator Amy Klobuchar.
— New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) January 20, 2020
Their explanation was, let’s say, a little strange and underwhelming.
There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Our elections are getting less free and fair, Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan, foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation, a deluge of money flows through our politics. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing.”
Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.”
That’s why we’re endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.”
So, this is a “split the baby” scenario. Times readers are told that it’s okay to go with the “radical” who constantly gets caught in her own lies, or the “realist” who got a second look from the editorial board solely because she was a woman, and because she has deadly aim with a binder. Bottom line: they want a woman president, but instead of choosing one over the other, they end up slighting them both by NOT picking one.
There are some admissions by the New York Times editorial board that is sure to infuriate the Bernie contingent. News flash, everyone – Bernie Sanders is OLD.
Mr. Sanders would be 79 when he assumed office, and after an October heart attack, his health is a serious concern. Then, there’s how Mr. Sanders approaches politics. He boasts that compromise is anathema to him. Only his prescriptions can be the right ones, even though most are overly rigid, untested and divisive. He promises that once in office, a groundswell of support will emerge to push through his agenda. Three years into the Trump administration, we see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in Washington for another.”
Good news, then, that Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left.”
Translation: Bernie refused to kiss up to us and make us feel good about supporting him.
Given the week that Bernie had, courtesy of CNN sucking up to Warren, this has to feel like a pretty big insult. Even more so when you consider the editorial’s very next sentence:
Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, my sides. Well, that’s one way to spin all the lies. However, the NYT then admits that Warren’s “Medicare For All” plan isn’t popular in the least, and has cost her support in the polls. This is why they’re backing a second horse in the race by endorsing Klobuchar as well. She’s safer than Warren on policy, and she isn’t an old white man like Joe Biden.
Mr. Biden maintains a lead in national polls, but that may be a measure of familiarity as much as voter intention. His central pitch to voters is that he can beat Donald Trump. His agenda tinkers at the edges of issues like health care and climate, and he emphasizes returning the country to where things were before the Trump era. But merely restoring the status quo will not get America where it needs to go as a society. What’s more, Mr. Biden is 77. It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.”
Good news, then, that Amy Klobuchar has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic center. Her vision goes beyond the incremental. Given the polarization in Washington and beyond, the best chance to enact many progressive plans could be under a Klobuchar administration.”
If you haven’t noticed the theme yet, it really is “no country for old white men,” according to the New York Times opinion board. They want a radical, like Warren, who makes them feel smart and validates them (yes, the press is made up of very needy people). But they realize that the American public isn’t in love with Warren, so they’re offering everyone a backup date in Klobuchar. Notice the wording in their support of both women. “Bernie’s too old, but at least we have Warren to take his place.” “Biden’s too old, but at least we have Klobuchar to take his place.” There’s nothing in there that says “we are totally blown away by this candidate because of the strength of their character/ideas/charisma/policy/ability/experience.” Nothing. It’s just that these two women, according to the New York Times, are less objectionable than the two men currently leading the polls.
And then the Times acknowledges that they’re not so much promoting a candidate as they are just wanting a woman – any woman – to replace Hillary Clinton in their hearts. So, let them fight.
There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it’s a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs. Clinton’s defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth. That’s the very purpose of primaries, to test-market strategies and ideas that can galvanize and inspire the country.”
Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate.”
May the best woman win.”
Gag. Seriously, both Warren and Klobuchar should be insulted by this open pandering, but they aren’t. Both of them expressed their satisfaction at being the NYT’s picks, even if they now have to duke it out.
NYT to Klobuchar and Warren pic.twitter.com/VmwVqJcNlH
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 20, 2020
The New York Times opinion board chickened out. They want Warren, because they long for the communism of Bernie Sanders – this is the paper of Walter Duranty, after all – but they want it in a less obnoxious package that might be easier to sell to the American voting public. Klobuchar is just their second option – and given her current status in the polls, she won’t care that she’s being tossed the first runner-up crown in this political pageant. If either woman had any dignity, they would refuse the endorsement on the grounds that the rationale for picking them is all about their genitalia, not their ideas. However, in this climate, they probably will take that as a compliment, not a slight.