NY Times Beclowns Itself with Double Democrat Endorsement
The New York Times is considered the paper of record, the media pied piper that other newspapers dutifully follow, which provides cable and network news their daily talking points. The N.Y. Times is also the go-to leak site for Deep State sieves, like James Comey, to get their stories spun, woven, and distributed, like a fine silk scarf, to the rest of the media establishment.
The N.Y. Times’ slogan is “All the news that’s fit to print,” dating back to 1896. The portion those running the Times left out must be in tiny print: “advancing the causes of liberal Democrats and disparaging conservative Republicans.”
They also endorse presidential candidates, as do most other newspapers. The last Republican presidential candidate the N.Y. Times endorsed was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, more than half a century ago. Since then, every endorsement has been for the Democrat candidate. So much for having an open mind.
While not surprising, it loudly screams partisanship, an appearance a major newspaper might seek to avoid. A New York Times columnist, Jim Rutenberg, wrote a column in April 2016, obviously befuddled by candidate Donald Trump’s popularity. He opined that the overtly biased media criticism was justified because Trump was “abnormal and potentially dangerous.” Fortunately, the American people disagreed.
Rutenberg’s justification was that “[i]t is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment.” The New York Times has been “true” to only the hard-baked opinions of the ruling class in New York and Washington, D.C. and fellow journalists.
It should then be no surprise that the N.Y. Times offered up another Democrat endorsement for the 2020 presidential election, keeping with its 64-year tradition of endorsing Democrats. Only this time, it endorsed two Democrats, despite the fact that only one can be the nominee — unless the Times want an all female ticket.
The double endorsement was a first, since the Times’ editors have always endorsed only one presidential candidate since their very first endorsement of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. If Honest Abe were running for president today, it’s doubtful he would have earned the endorsement over, say, Crooked Hillary.
But in the era where there are more than two sexes, the woke administrators of the N.Y. Times have decided that they could endorse more than one candidate: Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren.
The New York Times, screen shot.
Their endorsement started with this: “American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future.” The reality is that there are only two visions — forward and backward, Trump making America great and any of the remaining handful of socialists/communists turning America into a bankrupt second-world hell-hole.
In their view, Trump represents one vision, described in the endorsement using typical Democrat clichés of “white nativism,” “America first unilateralism abroad,” “brazen corruption,” “escalating culture wars,” and “a judiciary stacked with ideologues.” A book could be written debunking this nonsense.
Their other two views are “moderate” and “progressive,” with Klobuchar and Warren, respectively, representing those two views. Amy Klobuchar is as much a moderate as Mitt Romney is and John McCain was conservative.
What happened to Sleepy Joe and Crazy Bernie? The New Woke Times doesn’t like old rich white guys, it seems. These people had no problem endorsing Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and John Kerry, but those days are long gone.
Bernie is disqualified because he is old and has had a heart attack. Bernie is 78 years old, while Warren is 70 — not exactly a spring chicken. Klobuchar, at 59, could be Bernie’s daughter.
Biden is also too old for the N.Y. Times at 77: “It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders,” the Times says. Does the paper mean Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad?
Bernie’s policies, according to the N.Y. Times, are “overly rigid, untested and divisive.” And Warren’s aren’t? Those two are both reading out of the same Marxist playbook.
Klobuchar is supposed to be a “moderate.” Yet she is in favor of the Green New Deal, seeing it as “aspirational” and promising she would vote for it. She has a 100 percent rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL and an “F” rating from the NRA. Some moderate. She also berates her staff, as the N.Y. Times begrudgingly notes, but such behavior apparently is not disqualifying for a liberal Democrat — unlike, say, getting two scoops of ice cream while your guests get only one. …