N.Y. Times’ ‘endorsement’ laughable
Not bold enough to pick one person
The New York Times’ anyone-but-a-man presidential “endorsement” of Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar is a laugh-outloud ode to indecision, ageism and condescending claptrap.
It’s definitely worth a good read, even for just the unintentional hilarity.
“Senator Warren is a gifted story-teller,” the editorial asserts straight-faced.
Like her story about being an American Indian?
“She speaks fluently about foreign policy.”
Like her flip-flop on the drone strike against Iran’s Qassem Soleimani, turning the targeted killing of a mass “murderer” into the “assassination” of a “senior foreign military official”?
Former Vice President Joe Biden is way too old to be president, the editorial claims.
“It is time for him to pass the torch to a new generation of political leaders.”
Former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg is way too young.
“We look forward to him working his way up,” says the editorial.
Andrew Yang is too inexperienced.
“We hope he decides to get involved in New York politics.”
Yes, maybe run for dogcatcher.
The worst is reserved for Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is depicted as the liberal version of Donald Trump. With a bad heart.
“His health is a serious concern.” And his policy proposals are “overly rigid, untested and divisive.”
“We see little advantage to exchanging one over-promising, divisive figure in
Washington for another,” the editorial asserts. Ouch. That’s just mean. The editorial also makes some other unfounded claims, sloughing off Biden’s standing at the top of the polls as a “measure of familiarity as much as voter intention.”
Pollsters have actually refuted this often-stated tale. Voters aren’t siding with Biden because of name recognition. It’s because they view him as the candidate best equipped to beat Trump.
But the worst sin of this “endorsement” is its unprecedented refusal to make a decision.
The editorial chooses to pass the buck and go with both Warren and Klobuchar even though the two candidates are offering widely different plans and visions.
The editorial seems to side with Klobuchar’s moremoderate plans, and says it’s “far too early” to count her out even though she is languishing in the national polls in single digits.
In fact, the editorial actually takes several slams at Warren.
“In her primary campaign … she has shown some questionable political instincts. She sometimes sounds like a candidate who sees a universe of us-versus-thems, who in the general election, would be going up against a president who has already divided America into his own version of them and us.”
And Warren puts too much blame on the business community, the editorial says.
“The country needs a more unifying path,” it concludes.
But in the end, the editorial doesn’t have the guts to choose Klobuchar and take a pass on Warren, probably because the Times is afraid of the blowback from progressives.
So Klobuchar and Warren are denied a clean win, and any voters looking to be guided by the Times’ decision — probably fewer than the Times would admit — are out of luck.
“May the best woman win,” the editorial concludes cheekily.
It’s a clear tell to the real reason the Times went with Klobuchar and Warren. They’re not men.