« Immigration problems solved! | The left's bid to smear Trump over Puerto Rico aid now looks skeezier than ever »
January 20, 2020

About that weird NYT endorsement for president

By Monica Showalter

Apparently, ideas don't matter to the brightsters of the New York Times, the supposed room full of the smartest kids in the class as grown-ups, which, once upon a time, was what was said of them.

What passes for an idea from them, at least enough to win their presidential endorsement now is...being a woman.

Here's their bizarre double endorsement to the two female remainers in the Democratic clown car.  Kamala Harris, eat your heart out:

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.

There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Our elections are getting less free and fair, Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan, foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation, a deluge of money flows through our politics. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing.

Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.

That's why we're endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

Here's their big rollout:

Broken link? It figures.

 "In 2020, both the radical and realist models warrant serious consideration," the Times' Tweet intones.

More likely, they don't trust the Democrats' twin frontrunners — radical Bernie Sanders and corrupt Joe Biden — to be able to go up against Trump and win.

As a result, they have made identity politics the cornerstone of their choice for president.  It's no longer about ideas as to who gets the endorsement; it's more important to be some kind of left-wing woman of any stripe.  There'd probably be a heckuva difference between a Klobuchar presidency and a Warren one, assuming Warren keeps her threats, or rather, "I have a plan" plans, to destroy the economy.  If being "moderate" were the deal, they'd pick Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg.  If being "progressive" were important, they'd crank out their twin endorsement for Bernie and Warren.  But if being a woman is important...well, ideas are going to have to go. 

The dual choice signals that the endorsement all comes down to identity, in the Who Can Beat Trump sweepstakes, and since none of them can, and they know none of them can, they've decided to virtue-signal with identity politics.

This weasel-choicing can be seen in their final wrap-up:

There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it's a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs. Clinton's defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth. That's the very purpose of primaries, to test-market strategies and ideas that can galvanize and inspire the country.

Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate.

May the best woman win.

Look how weak their position is with all the test-marketing talk about ideas.  They don't stand for anything other than Getting Trump, so let the crowd decide.

Nope, it's not about "ideas that can galvanize," as they claim; it's about virtue-signaling for a female president based on identity politics.  How'd that work out for Hillary Clinton, who ran against the dreaded Trump?

It's a product of Trump Derangement Syndrome, every bit as bad and obsessive as Hillary's is.  Values and stuff don't matter now — just what the crowd wants.  Just what wins.  They don't care.

Maybe it's a subliminal recognition that there's nobody out there who can beat Trump, so now it comes down to identity politics above ideas.  They'd like you to have your choice of this slop — pay no attention to that stellar Trump performance over on the other side of the aisle.  Trump Derangement Syndrome leads to some bizarre behavior.

Image credit: Twitter screen shot.

Apparently, ideas don't matter to the brightsters of the New York Times, the supposed room full of the smartest kids in the class as grown-ups, which, once upon a time, was what was said of them.

What passes for an idea from them, at least enough to win their presidential endorsement now is...being a woman.

Here's their bizarre double endorsement to the two female remainers in the Democratic clown car.  Kamala Harris, eat your heart out:

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.

There are legitimate questions about whether our democratic system is fundamentally broken. Our elections are getting less free and fair, Congress and the courts are increasingly partisan, foreign nations are flooding society with misinformation, a deluge of money flows through our politics. And the economic mobility that made the American dream possible is vanishing.

Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.

That's why we're endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. They are Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

Here's their big rollout:

Broken link? It figures.

 "In 2020, both the radical and realist models warrant serious consideration," the Times' Tweet intones.

More likely, they don't trust the Democrats' twin frontrunners — radical Bernie Sanders and corrupt Joe Biden — to be able to go up against Trump and win.

As a result, they have made identity politics the cornerstone of their choice for president.  It's no longer about ideas as to who gets the endorsement; it's more important to be some kind of left-wing woman of any stripe.  There'd probably be a heckuva difference between a Klobuchar presidency and a Warren one, assuming Warren keeps her threats, or rather, "I have a plan" plans, to destroy the economy.  If being "moderate" were the deal, they'd pick Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg.  If being "progressive" were important, they'd crank out their twin endorsement for Bernie and Warren.  But if being a woman is important...well, ideas are going to have to go. 

The dual choice signals that the endorsement all comes down to identity, in the Who Can Beat Trump sweepstakes, and since none of them can, and they know none of them can, they've decided to virtue-signal with identity politics.

This weasel-choicing can be seen in their final wrap-up:

There will be those dissatisfied that this page is not throwing its weight behind a single candidate, favoring centrists or progressives. But it's a fight the party itself has been itching to have since Mrs. Clinton's defeat in 2016, and one that should be played out in the public arena and in the privacy of the voting booth. That's the very purpose of primaries, to test-market strategies and ideas that can galvanize and inspire the country.

Ms. Klobuchar and Ms. Warren right now are the Democrats best equipped to lead that debate.

May the best woman win.

Look how weak their position is with all the test-marketing talk about ideas.  They don't stand for anything other than Getting Trump, so let the crowd decide.

Nope, it's not about "ideas that can galvanize," as they claim; it's about virtue-signaling for a female president based on identity politics.  How'd that work out for Hillary Clinton, who ran against the dreaded Trump?

It's a product of Trump Derangement Syndrome, every bit as bad and obsessive as Hillary's is.  Values and stuff don't matter now — just what the crowd wants.  Just what wins.  They don't care.

Maybe it's a subliminal recognition that there's nobody out there who can beat Trump, so now it comes down to identity politics above ideas.  They'd like you to have your choice of this slop — pay no attention to that stellar Trump performance over on the other side of the aisle.  Trump Derangement Syndrome leads to some bizarre behavior.

Image credit: Twitter screen shot.