Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

New York Times Picks Warren and Klobuchar, but Really Only Picks Warren

New York Times Picks Warren and Klobuchar, but Really Only Picks Warren

Everybody laugh! The editorial board called Warren a “gifted storyteller.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSgP7NIEhLU

The New York Times broke tradition on Sunday night by endorsing Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But this is more than just an endorsement for the Democratic primary. Look at the opening paragraph:

The incumbent president, Donald Trump, is clear about where he is guiding the Republican Party — white nativism at home and America First unilateralism abroad, brazen corruption, escalating culture wars, a judiciary stacked with ideologues and the veneration of a mythological past where the hierarchy in American society was defined and unchallenged.

Wow, editorial board! I completely forgot that President Barack Obama presided over a corruption-free eight years! I also forgot that the eight years under Obama lacked culture wars and no one cared about social justice!

Oh, yeah! Obama never once nominated an ideologue for a judicial post! Man, Obama filled those eight years with sunshine, rainbows, unicorns, and lollipops.

Trump comes into office and America is awful. Racists everywhere. He dare put America’s interests above anyone else. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!

The editorial board tried to explain why they chose Warren and Klobuchar:

It was a privilege for us on the editorial board to spend more than a dozen hours talking to candidates, asking them any question that came to mind. Yet that exercise is impossible for most Americans, and we were left wanting for a more focused conversation for the public. Now is the time to narrow the race.

The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country. But the events of the past few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird those values.

In other words, The New York Times is desperate to get rid of Trump so why not pick two? It also seems like the choice is sending the Democratic Party a message: This is the ticket to win in 2020.

Due to questions over Sen. Bernie Sanders’ health, the editorial board found relief that Warren “has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic left.”

The editorial board praised Warren as a “gifted storyteller” (more on that later) who can speak “elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans.” They adore how she has detailed policies, unlike other candidates. The board members think she “speaks fluently about foreign policy.”

On the other hand, the editorial board described Klobuchar as the “standard-bearer for the Democratic center.” They hope her bipartisan credentials can bring all sides of the party together along with her “Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness.”

Their argument is automatically moot because they called Warren a “gifted storyteller.” How many times has Professor Jacobson and others on this website debunked Warren’s stories? Here are a few:

But if you can get past that obviously false statement from the editorial board there are other problems with choosing two candidates with different views.

Board member Mara Gay told Morning Joe this morning that the NYT “is really traditionalist.” However, their decision “is an acknowledgment” that America’s institutions “need strengthening in a way that may require something far beyond what it did in the past.”

Others found it as a cop-out or a way to boost Warren as the preferred candidate.

No Males!

You should also look at the candidates the NYT did not pick. Could you imagine the outrage from social justice warriors if they picked a white male, especially an old white male like Sanders or former Vice President Joe Biden?

The NYT admitted the similarities between Sanders and Warren, but Sanders’ October heart attack saved the writers from having to choose him.

But age became a huge factor when it came to Sanders and Biden.

Biden’s age became a problem as well with the writers suggesting he “pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.”

Sanders will be 79 in January 2021. Biden will be 77 in January 2021.

Well, Warren turns 71 in June. So if age is a problem why doesn’t she fall into that category? Klobuchar turns 60 in May.

So if Biden should step aside for the new generation then why didn’t the NYT pick Andrew Yang? He’s not white. He just turned 45.

Former South Ben Mayor Pete Buttigieg is white, but he’s gay and only 38. Why not him?

Here’s the deal. They want this “new generation,” but they picked Warren and Klobuchar due to their experience as well. They described Buttigieg and Yang as novices, which is not wrong, but don’t they represent this new generation? I think so.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Just be honest about your criteria. You do not want males, especially old white males.

Because we saw how well it went in 2016 when the Democratic Party chose diversity over what voters actually wanted.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

2smartforlibs | January 20, 2020 at 3:36 pm

DESPERATION.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 20, 2020 at 3:43 pm

Got to love it….

“‘telling stories’ …. a gentle way of saying … lying” – David Farmer

The NYT must be implying that it takes TWO women to do the job of ONE man.

(This observation was shamelessly stolen by me from other websites)

Pathological liars stick together. The ny times is a perfect match for Fauxcahontas.

The NYT gave up credibility and objectivity a long time ago. Now it’s identity politics and political correctness along with a large dose of revisionist history with agitprop on the side.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 20, 2020 at 4:39 pm

Too good not to pass along.

NvMtnOldMan says:

In the words of the NYT two white men is sexist and racist, so why is it that two white women (????) is NOT?? No wonder us real Americans are confused.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 20, 2020 at 6:01 pm

Watters’ Words: The media’s getting nervous

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUEnPYNmnYM

Antifundamentalist | January 20, 2020 at 8:15 pm

I believe the disconnect between what the DNC wants and what their constituents want is only getting worse. It doesn’t help that Progressives aren’t actually Democrats, but the DNC wants to claim them.

Saw a report earlier today that the ny slimes has backed democrats for president since 1960. Diversity isn’t their specialty.

    walls in reply to 4fun. | January 20, 2020 at 9:58 pm

    I recall after Castro took over Cuba in 1959, the Slimes ran a piece praising him as the second coming of the Messiah.

      Why the ny times so slavishly supports and protects soviet genocidal maniacs is incredible in the face of the fact that the my times admin and all its idiot writers would be among the first ones murdered by soviet fascists taking control here.

“The editorial board called Warren a “gifted storyteller.”

You just can’t make this stuff up! I thought newspapers are supposed to go the way of the dinosaur. Do we need a comet to hit again, or what? I’m hoping the NYT is in the life support stage.

    The ny times will never ‘go away’ – it will always be subsidized by shady fascist money.

    Remember, NewsWeak recenty sold for one penny. It’s sole value is its cover in supermarket checkout lines. No one buys it.

    No one buys Time magazine either. It exists merely for its cover value on newsstands and in supermarkets. They need SOMEPLACE to plaster doctored photos of michelle obama’s fat ass.

Nice “Ghostbusters” reference, Mary!

Trump must be Gozer the Gozerian, Volguus Zildrohar, Lord of the Sebouillia, according to the Dhimmi-crats.

There’s a simple explanation for this: most democrats get to vote twice.

The media know that Bathhouse Barry dislikes both Sanders and Biden. Hence the NYT’s sycophantic support for Warren and Klobuchar who are, for all intents and purposes, unelectable.

I hope they realize that by buttering up Obama, they may be giving Mayor Pete an opening to “slip in.” 😉

    artichoke in reply to Solomon. | January 26, 2020 at 1:42 am

    I thought Klobuchar might be electable, because she seems sort of centrist, as long as you don’t make her take a position. I think the debates have softballing her trying to help her.

    Now the NY Times helps.

    And still she’s barely a blip in the polls.

Years ago there was a pretty woman with a hand puppet i think she called lamb chop on PBS. She was a gifted story teller. Warren is not pretty, gifted,or likeable, but she pretends to be something else as a fraud.

Klobuchar must be a really weak campaigner. All this help and her numbers still don’t move, as Buttigieg surges ahead.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend