On the off chance that you’ve recently spent any time thinking that politics in the U.S. weren’t weird enough, The New York Times editorial board has decided to make a double endorsement for the Democratic nomination for president, throwing its weight behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and (or?) Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.):
The editorial board’s decision to back not one but two candidates is a significant break with convention, one meant to address the "realist" and "radical" models being presented to voters by the 2020 Democratic field, the editorial says. https://t.co/3wmfdn7BXq
— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 20, 2020
The Times‘ reasoning is a tortured jumble of identity politics hell and ORANGE MAN BAD ZOMG RACISM nonsense. Imagine if The Onion writers had all lost their senses of humor, contracted malaria and, while delirious from dehydration, mistakenly thought they still had some relevance in the world.
American voters must choose between three sharply divergent visions of the future.
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.
On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced.
Um…ok.
The Times board eventually wanders into the struggle for the soul of the Democratic party between far-left and far-far-left:
AT THE DAWN OF 2020, some of the most compelling ideas are not emerging from the center, but from the left wing of the Democratic Party. That’s a testament to the effectiveness of the case that Bernie Sanders and Senator Warren have made about what ails the country. We worry about ideological rigidity and overreach, and we’d certainly push back on specific policy proposals, like nationalizing health insurance or decriminalizing the border. But we are also struck by how much more effectively their messages have matched the moment.
This endorsement is a thoroughly glowing portrait of Warren that doesn’t get around to mentioning her struggles with truthfulness. The board even refers to her as a “gifted storyteller,” completely lacking the awareness of what that could mean to her detractors.
They do manage to mention, however, reports of Klobuchar’s temper with her staff. But, they do refer to her approach as being “realist.”
Still, the sentiment seems to be that the Times really wants Warren to be the nominee, but isn’t quite ready to admit that the paper’s board has gone full commie yet. The double endorsement is a stunt meant merely to cover.
The present state of the polls would indicate that neither one of these women will get near the nomination. It will be interesting to see if this unusual endorsement moves the needle for either candidate.
___
Kruiser Twitter
Kruiser Facebook
PJ Media Associate Editor Stephen Kruiser is the author of “Don’t Let the Hippies Shower” and “Straight Outta Feelings: Political Zen in the Age of Outrage,” both of which address serious subjects in a humorous way. Monday through Friday he edits PJ Media’s “Morning Briefing.”
