+1. Got very little to add here. It’s astounding how “Yeah, but they’re liberals” is an immediate conversation-stopper. Who cares about how accurate or honest or reasonable they are - they’re liberal, and that means their opinion cannot possibly be right.
To be fair … how often do you listen with a serious ear to Glenn Beck? Would you really weigh his analysis of why Sanders or Clinton is the better candidate very heavily?
Of course not. But there’s a difference here. The New York Times has won upwards of a hundred Pulitzers and has a long-standing reputation for exemplary journalism. Glenn Beck is an insane blowhard with a long-standing reputation for fecal diarrhea. Pick any Glenn Beck segment and chances are you can spot quite a few lies, mistakes, and bad strings of logic. There is simply no comparison. There’s a difference between “I’m no longer paying much attention to a source’s blithering because they’re wrong all the time” and “I’m not going to give any source that doesn’t already agree with my political views the time of day”.
More reasonable right-wing conspiracy theories would see the Kasich endorsement as being the result of mild concern by the Times that a non-loon is doing well enough in NH to be a threat, and thus need tamping down by a poisonous (to the GOP base) endorsement. Further, his having been endorsed (at least technically) by the Times should be toxic enough that Kasich will not be picked as a VP candidate, thus further weakening any ticket headed by Trump or Cruz.
Or it could be that the Times editorial board is patting itself on the back by showing it would at least listen to a “reasonable” GOP candidate, when in reality it would find ample reason if Kasich was nominated to portray him as a rampaging dinosaur.
Amusingly, there is a far-left alternative newspaper in central Ohio that just published an op-ed accusing the Times of being in the tank for Kasich (because a Times Magazine article on him didn’t attack him with sufficient viciousness). This was before the Times endorsement. They’ll really be in a monster tizzy now.
:rolleyes:
Untrue! There’s fellow basement dweller Jim Gilmore. He’s still in.
No leftists look to the NY Times as a “voice” to represent them, not even on their editorial pages, which are far too corporate. Respect for good journalism is the most you’re going to get.
Exactly.
But that’s because he’s Glen Beck.
I take note of newspaper endorsements and the more prestigious and influential the paper, the more I take note of it. The NYT and the Washington Post are in a league of their own, those endorsements I take quite seriously and if they differ from my preference it makes me take a second look.
ABT
Glenn Beck is not a serious commentator. If the NYT had a writer who spent his off hours drawing up conspiracy theory brainstorms on chalkboards I would expect everyone to ignore him, too.
Huh? Both Clinton and Sanders are on the Left. There is no distinction between being the voice of the Left and picking one Left leaning candidate over another, even if the Left leaning they pick is not as left as the other one.
I mean, unless you are one of those strange people who think Clinton is a DINO (or worse yet, a Republican, which is quite possibly the weirdest thing I’ve heard Hillary Clinton ever be called), in which case it really isn’t worth listening to you on this issue.
She *was *a Goldwater supporter, in her young/naive/suburban/privileged-upraising days. But then, like so many others of that background, she discovered there were other people in the world.
It is the only part of the GOP that has any intellectual vitality at this point.
Actually, there’s a possibility you left out. Clinton is a Democrat and a centrist, though not a DINO, whereas Sanders is a leftist. That possibility actually seems closest to correct IMHO, which is why I also think that the NYT is a fairly centrist paper.
Clinton is not on the Left. DINO or not, she is somewhat to the right of Obama. Who is not on the Left.
She’s a New Democrat. She was DLC in 1992 and I suppose she’s DLC now, though it no longer exists in organized form; certainly there’s no reason to think her politics have drifted leftward since then. And the New Democrats/DLC are emphatically not on the Left, that was/is the whole point of them.
Considering that Clinton was the 11th more liberal Senator when she was serving in the Senate, calling her a centrist also seems to be a bit silly, IMHO. She’s a lefty, maybe trending towards center-left, but still left.