Yesterday, the New York Times editorial board published its decision decision regarding the 2020 Democrat presidential nomination.
The Times has endorsed not one, but two candidates.
You may be wondering how that can be, since – unless the constitution was rewritten this morning – there still is only one president at a time. But this is today’s New York Times we’re talking about, so that doesn’t really count.
And who are the two candidates receiving these, er, unusual co-endorsements?
Why they’re Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.
What? Did you expect a White male to get the Times’ endorsement? You’re kidding, right?
Now: what, other than their plumbing, attracts The Times to these two candidates?
These excerpts might help.
For Ms. Warren:
Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller. She speaks elegantly of how the economic system is rigged against all but the wealthiest Americans, and of “our chance to rewrite the rules of power in our country,” as she put it in a speech last month. In her hands, that story has the passion of a convert, a longtime Republican from Oklahoma and a middle-class family, whose work studying economic realities left her increasingly worried about the future of the country. The word “rigged” feels less bombastic than rooted in an informed assessment of what the nation needs to do to reassert its historic ideals like fairness, generosity and equality.
“Senator Warren is a gifted storyteller”? That’s the first thing the editorial board says about her? Wow, it can say that again. She has been telling stories – like about her ancestry, how she “lost” her first teaching job, how her health care plan wouldn’t raise middle-class taxes, etc. etc. etc. since she’s been a candidate.
And Amy Klobuchar?
Amy Klobuchar has emerged as a standard-bearer for the Democratic center. Her vision goes beyond the incremental. Given the polarization in Washington and beyond, the best chance to enact many progressive plans could be under a Klobuchar administration.
The senator from Minnesota is the very definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness. Her lengthy tenure in the Senate and bipartisan credentials would make her a deal maker (a real one) and uniter for the wings of the party — and perhaps the nation.
She promises to put the country on the path — through huge investments in green infrastructure and legislation to lower emissions — to achieve 100 percent net-zero emissions no later than 2050. She pledges to cut childhood poverty in half in a decade by expanding the earned-income and child care tax credits. She also wants to expand food stamps and overhaul housing policy and has developed the field’s most detailed plan for treating addiction and mental illness. And this is all in addition to pushing for a robust public option in health care, free community college and a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour.
Wow, that’s some first paragraph. She is “a standard-bearer for the Democratic center”…. therefore “the best chance to enact many progressive plans could be under a Klobuchar administration.
Huh? She’s a Democratic centrist, and therefore offers the best chance to enact progressive plans?
That is either a direct contradiction in terms (i.e. a centrist who would enact progressive – read that leftist – plans) or it is telling us that the Democrat Party’s center is not central at all, it is leftward enough to be called progressive.
On the assumption (not certainty) that the New York Times editorial board has not completely taken leave of its senses, I’m assuming it is trying to communicate choice #2.
So, bottom line: the New York Times is co-endorsing a far left serial liar and a candidate who demonstrates that centrists – real centrists, not what the Democrat “center” has become – are political orphans in what used to be their party.
Is it just me, or does Donald Trump owe the Times’ editorial board a major thank-you?