Image 01 Image 03

Even Liberal WaPo says Warren and Sanders proposals don’t “meet a baseline degree of factual plausibility”

Even Liberal WaPo says Warren and Sanders proposals don’t “meet a baseline degree of factual plausibility”

Mocks Warren’s debate line: “Why go to the trouble of running for president to promote ideas that can’t work?”

The second round of Democrat presidential debates have caused even more clown car chaos for a party clearly struggling to find its footing.

Not only was the second round of debates a ratings failure for CNN, but the candidates on night one were called out for being too extreme by their own party and the candidates on night two assailed Obama. Both the extremism and the attacks on Obama have stirred leftists to respond.

Perhaps one of the more interesting responses was from the Washington Post‘s editorial board. The title of their op-ed was a direct swipe at Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): “Why go to the trouble of running for president to promote ideas that can’t work?“.

While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was busy shouting at everyone and no one, Warren was busily condescending and sniding her way further into unlikability.

WaPo’s editorial board writes:

“I DON’T understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Tuesday night, in the most notable zinger of July’s Democratic presidential primary debate. “I get a little bit tired of Democrats afraid of big ideas,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the other major candidate on the field’s left wing, piled on.

This got us thinking about some big ideas in U.S history. Like, say, amending the Constitution to outlaw liquor. Or sending half a million troops into Vietnam. Or passing a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy in a time of massive deficits.

Ambition is essential, in other words, but not sufficient. The country faces big challenges, such as economic inequality and climate change, that call for creative solutions. They also call for wisdom, honesty and even a bit of modesty about government’s limitations. Having embraced President Barack Obama’s “no drama” approach to governing, often defined by the philosophy “don’t do stupid s—,” it would be odd if Democrats suddenly embraced ideological grandiosity as a prerequisite for service in the Oval Office.

Apparently unimpressed with Warren’s and Sanders’ “big ideas” devoid of “factual plausibility,” WaPo’s board continues:

That means, first, that proposals should meet a baseline degree of factual plausibility — a bar that, for example, the Medicare-for-all plan that Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren favor does not clear. Ms. Warren’s Tuesday night zinger was aimed at former congressman John Delaney (Md.), who had pointed out correctly that the numbers behind the proposal simply do not compute. . . . .

. . . . The next president should have a vision of progress for the nation that is expansive and inspiring. It also should be grounded in mathematical and political reality.

This appears to be a theme over at WaPo where one writer urges Warren and Sanders to embrace “progressive pragmatism” instead of  retreating into the “demagoguery of the left” before also targeting Warren’s “what I don’t understand” line.

What I don’t understand is why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States simply to ignore questions about real-world realities and promise fights without explaining how to win them. Reality is not going to bend to a new shape come 2021 just because a President Sanders shouts at it or a President Warren fights with it.

In an op-ed entitled “Sanders and Warren got crushed on health care, finally,” Stephen Stromberg goes for the jugular.

[A]rguments about what will sell in a general election are only so compelling. It is not just that the Sanders-Warren platform is out of step with the middle of the country; it is that it is bad on the merits. The knockout blow came when the health-care plan at the center of their agenda failed to withstand the scrutiny of the other candidates.

. . . . Sanders and Warren marshaled two arguments. First, they accused their critics of repeating Republican talking points, which is not a policy argument at all.

Their other defense was only marginally more substantive: that insurance companies are bad, profit in the health-care sector is bad, and health-care bureaucracy is bad. “Why does every doctor, why does every hospital have to fill out so many complicated forms?” Warren asked. “It’s because it gives insurance companies a chance to say no and to push that cost back on the patients.”

Of course, doctors and hospitals would still have to fill out forms under Sanders’s plan, just like they do now under Medicare. It’s just that they would exclusively bill the government. And the government would still deny care that some people wanted, because if it didn’t, the country would spend unsustainable amounts of money. Every system requires trade-offs, a simple fact that Sanders and Warren refuse to admit.

Stromberg, like the WaPo editorial board, blasted both Warren and Sanders for their flippant dismissal of very real concerns about their proposals.

Their promise to End All The Bad Things is a fiction unbefitting the serious debate about health-care policy that the rest of the Democratic field is engaged in. Universal health care can work. Single-payer can work. Just not the way Sanders and Warren promise.

. . . . If there were any justice in politics, Delaney would be rising in the polls and Sanders and Warren would be relegated to the fringe.

Former Rep. John Delaney (D-NJ), to whom Stromberg refers, was very effective in making the case against the fantasy agenda of Warren and Sanders.

Delaney has continued his attack on the party’s extremist leading candidates:

These will all be used by Republicans against all the Democrats who have endorsed Medicare for all and other radical proposals.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“That means, first, that proposals should meet a baseline degree of factual plausibility…”

Well sure, WaPo layers and layers of Editors, but have you ever stopped to consider that they’re going for “plausible factuality?”

Becacuse double down, enablers.

Dare I say, “Promoters?”

The idea that Medicare is “free” is laughable to those of us on it. Both my husband and I pay a monthly premium for Part B, a separate monthly premium to a private insurer for a Med Sup plan to cover deductibles and copays, another monthly premium for Part D (drugs) – totals nearly $900/month for this “free” coverage. And that’s on top of the mandatory monthly Medicare payroll deduction we were both assessed during the 40+ years of our working careers. Yes, we’ve set it up to completely cover our medical (but not dental or long term care) expenses, but there’s nothing remotely “free” about it.

Every time Bernie stands up there waving his arms and shouting to deflect the question about the actual cost of coverage I get heartburn knowing that so many people are nodding their heads and mumbling “Free!”, like a zombie mumbling “Brains!”

    OrJustThink in reply to RNJD. | August 4, 2019 at 10:50 am

    What you should be asking is “what exactly are you paying for”. I’ve dropped medicare and gap insurance and do self-pay for everything. It saves me at least half the cost across the board, now that it’s not “illegal” to not have health insurance. Your just padding the pockets of the insurance companies with all that money.

      It appears that you’ve analyzed your health situation and made decisions based on your specific needs. My husband and I are in excellent general health, but as we approached Medicare age we knew we had various “mechanical” issues with our bodies that were going to require repair/replacement (heart valve, knees, low back). These required care by specialists, complicated surgeries, and extensive rehab. So, knowing this, and being retired on an adequate, but fixed, income we selected coverages that would spread the deductibles and copayment costs across a manageable monthly amount. In the last 6 years each one of us has averaged a major surgery every 12-18 months, in addition to minor procedures such as cataract removal and routine health maintenance. This has worked out perfectly for us. My points are:

      1. There is no “one size fits all” reimbursement approach for paying health care expenses; and
      2. There is no such thing as “free” health care.

      tom_swift in reply to OrJustThink. | August 4, 2019 at 6:17 pm

      Most of us—not all, but most—are in excellent health, until . . . suddenly, we’re not. And no, diet and exercise won’t protect you from everything forever; age is unconquerable.

      I had no medical expenses for decades, until . . . coronary artery disease. It’s twenty years, three heart attacks, and a bout of tachycardia later, and I just had a defibrilator implanted in my shoulder, accompanied by a bill with a few numbers followed by more zeros than I usually see in one place. I’m not rich enough to pay that, and not poor enough to get it for free.

      Fortunately, insurance makes personal solvency possible. Having it is expensive, but not as expensive as not having it.

        Best of luck to you, Tom. A porcine aortic valve seems to have stabilized my condition, but my heart will always require frequent monitoring. We have a dear Scottish friend who died at aged 60 because she was put on the British NHI waiting list for a coronary bypass and died before her name made it to the top. No matter what anyone says, current U.S healthcare is better than anything the Democrats are promoting.

Come on, boys and girls. This is all kabuki …. and quite bad kabuki at that.

None of this blather—and blather is all it is—has any relevance to the 2020 election.

Just ignore it; maybe it’ll just go away.

Oh facts shmacts – ORANGE MAN BAD!!!

Michael Johnson | August 3, 2019 at 8:56 pm

I don’t think WaPo has gone off the reservation. I think they are perfectly willing to continue lying to the American people. They are going to propose “No Drama Obama” as the right candidate Yeah, “For the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country” is not drama. God help us.

Just because Delaney isn’t as insane as the others doesn’t mean he’s sane.

John Delaney is serious about tackling climate change. It’s a big problem and it requires big solutions, which is why Delaney is announcing his $4 trillion Climate Plan that is full of new ideas and innovative solutions.

    Yup. And one trillion goes to the Clinton Initiative, one trillion to the Obama Library, one trillion to Baltimore, and another trillion to buy bernie sanders more houses.

I would not count on sanity from the editorial board of the WaPo. In deriding expensive bad ideas they left out the worst offender in US history: the failed “War on Poverty”. But they did bash tax cuts that did more to stimulate the economy than the War On Poverty ever did.

If Warren or Sanders is the Democrat nominee the WaPo will be gung-ho for these same plans they pretended to deride.

Can it be said “Medicare for all” is tacit admission that Obamacare has failed?

Cynic that I am, I presume that the WaPo’s reason for trashing Sanders and Warren’s Medicare-for-all proposal is that they assume if either gets the D presidential nomination, it guarantees Pres. Trump will win reelection.

They don’t want 4 more years of a Trump administration. QED. End of story.

    PrincetonAl in reply to Mark Michael. | August 4, 2019 at 9:59 am


    Anytime a Democrat or Democrat proposal gets criticized it’s because the politician or proposal has become a liability to the progressive agenda, not because WaPo gives a darn about the proposal flaws.

    They are almost all horrible. They don’t care that it’s bad policy – only that it’s so bad it’s hurting the cause.

LOL watch all the dedicated little prog minions trying to Gaslight the populace. “No drama” Jugears didn’t “do stupid shit.”. Really? Ramming through a rank partisan “healthcare” bill that further fucked up our already fucked up system wasn’t stupid? Running guns to drug cartels wasn’t stupid? Weaponizing the IRS and the Intel community against political opponents wasn’t stupid? You know what WaPo? Fuck you, YOU’RE stupid you fucking liar.

American Human | August 4, 2019 at 12:22 am

“. . . . The next president should have a vision of progress for the nation that is expansive and inspiring. It also should be grounded in mathematical and political reality”

“Progress”, “Expansive”, “Inspiring”? All of that with no exception is totally un-grounded in any sort of mathematical or political reality. The WaPo states that a big idea is “a $1.5 trillion tax cut for the wealthy in a time of massive deficits”. They apparently believe that I am wealthy because I got a tax cut from that silly $1.5T tax cut for the wealthy. And further, why should the public, the middle class tax-paying saps that make up the huge bulk of the people in this country should be responsible for paying for their deficit spending? If they can just borrow money to pay it, why do they even collect a tax in the first place?
I hate politicians, the WaPo, the NYT (and the Yankees, but that’s different) and every democrat idiot who believes they know better than me about anything.

And yet this very paper advocates open borders.

They have to. If a national health plan ever becomes a reality, the U.S. will need thousands of second- and third-world doctors because the number of our medical school graduates will plummet.

All the candidates are full of shit and anyone with a brain knows it. I can’t think of one single idea that’s been implemented that worked as proposed or cost as proposed. Most just screw things up.