The Times whiffs on a choice

Talk about two-faced! 

In what it called a “break with convention,” the New York Times editorial board offered a kind-of BOGO — two Democratic presidential nominees for the price of one.

U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (left), and Amy Klobuchar. (Photo: Reuters)

It was also a break with courage.

When you are called on to make a choice, you must to make a choice. You can’t pick both the Chiefs and the Niners to win the Super Bowl.

Quick sidelight: On his Saturday morning CNN show, Michael Smerconish polled his viewers as to whether newspapers should make editorial endorsements. There were more than 11,000 responses and broke right down the middle — 50/50.

Kind of like the Times long, labored copout. 

Newspapers write editorials to announce and support its world view, which is why they should endorse. At the same time it creates questions in many minds about the newspaper’s impartiality, which is why it shouldn’t endorse. 

Viewed in a certain light, the Times could be accused of ageism — Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are too old, Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang are too young/inexperienced — not to mention too male, or am I imagining that?

King Solomon, according to legend, ordered a baby cut in two, to share between two women who claimed to be the mother. The Old Gray Lady decided to cut the nomination in two on behalf of two not-so-gray women nominees — one “radical” (Elizabeth Warren), one “realist” (Amy Klobuchar). 

The Times said its history is one of siding with the more “traditional” candidate, which surprised me, but if that is the case, why the two-fer with nontraditional Warren? Why not select just Klobuchar? Is the Times trying to keep its street cred with the radical rabble? 

“If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now,” the Times wrote. So why toss a bouquet to the more traditional Klobuchar? And what about the other female candidate, Hawaiian Tulsi Gabbart? She must be wondering why she’s treated like poi (a traditional Hawaiian staple).

In dismissing surging socialist Sanders, the Times said it was rejecting “ideological rigidity” and overreach, such as “nationalizing health insurance or decriminalizing the border,”  which I thought the Times supported.

The Times believes in border enforcement? I thought only racists — according to Beto O’Rourke and Julian Castro — believe in border enforcement. Live  and learn, I guess.

While praising its two choices, the Times made an amazing Freudian slip when it referred to Warren as “a gifted storyteller.”

You mean as in an imagined Native American heritage? Or being forced when pregnant to leave a teaching job, when school board records show the opposite? Or denying having sent any of her children to private schools? 

The Times heaps praise on Klobuchar for her experience, common sense and bipartisan credentials.

I sense the editorial tilts toward Klobuchar. Or am I imagining that because I am a realist/traditionalist?

7 thoughts on “The Times whiffs on a choice”

    What an interesting topic. “How to sit on a fence” ! As you know, the papers have always printed their opinion. Nothing wrong with that – in theory. Everybody has an opinion. Nothing wrong with that either – also in theory. The problem is when truth gets in the way of stating your opinion. In a conversation, two opposing views should be presented in fairness and honesty. Enlightenment often comes about in this manner.
    Then you have a gimmick like this, where the old grey lady is trying to sell more papers. I could care less about football. I don’t share Klobuchars’ philosophy. I would like to see Warren sued for everything she’s got. The woman, probably from her beginning, has a problem with telling the truth. Masquerading as an Native American in the ’60s got you a lot of coups. Head of the line privilege in college and government related work are two prime examples. ( officially, being a woman wasn’t a penalty nor credit back then ). Very probably, Warren stole a college admittance and jobs playing Pocahontas . ( of course, that wasn’t an issue at U of P. The stanchion of liberalism )
    Then there’s Congresswoman Major Tulsi Gabbart. The woman has potential. She needs to be mentored . President Trump should consider her as an undersecretary.

  2. I view any newspaper’s endorsement of a certain candidate as akin to a movie star’s endorsement of a certain product. Who cares, say, what Jennifer Aniston uses to shave her legs, or that the NYT endorses women simply because they are women? And Stu, that ‘storyteller’ line aimed at Pocahontas was a hoot. Glad you pointed it out.

  3. Concerning anything political the Times is the Soviet newspaper, Pravda. The only thing that I would use from their political opinion is that I would look in another direction for answers. Sad that well meaning people take mainstream news opinion seriously. I prefer Yang because he has had much less time in the corrupt American political system and he seems to believe only the Congress should have the power to start wars. Most Americans don’t understand that was an idea central to the founding of the American republic. It seems the European kings had recently been a bit too fond of some very bloody wars.

    1. The Russians (when there was a USSR) had two newspapers: PRAVDA, the Russian word for “truth” and IZVESTIYA, the Russian word for “news.” The joke Russians told on themselves was, “There is no PRAVDA in IZVESTIAY, and no INVESTIYA in PRAVDA.”

  4. If the Times really wished to break with convention it would consider endorsing Trump. The newspaper of record hasn’t backed a Republican presidential candidate since 1956.

Comments are closed.