West Coast Main Stream Media Bias--Same as the East Coast (LA Times Bias)
[as is my custom, I've entered my comments immediately following the pertinent section in italics and in blue]
A year ago, Hillary Clinton seemed to be on her way to a serene, obstacle-free coronation as the 2016 Democratic nominee for president. In an April 14, 2015, editorial, The Times bemoaned the fact that the Democratic race consisted of “exactly one candidate with a truly national profile” — the former secretary of state and U.S. senator from New York. The editorial did mention Sen. Bernie Sanders, but only as one of a group of second-tier figures that also included former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former U.S. Sen Jim Webb of Virginia (remember them?). National profile? Do you mean like that of Barack Hussein Obama, and are you saying that he has fallen flat on his face on account of his lack of national profile?" You fucking bastards.
Today, as California prepares for its primary on June 7, Clinton is again on the verge of victory. But what a difference a year has made. In the intervening months, so many Democrats and independents have felt the Bern that the self-described democratic socialist from Vermont acquired the national stature that seemed improbable a year ago. His passionate excoriation of a “rigged economy” and his call for a sweeping political revolution energized millions of Americans, especially young voters, and he put Clinton on the defensive about her ties to Wall Street, her support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the trade policies of her husband’s Bill Clinton’s administration.
Yet even though he has proved a far more formidable challenger than we — or Clinton — expected, Sanders lacks the experience and broad understanding of domestic and (especially) foreign policy that the former secretary of state would bring to the presidency. Although Sanders has tapped into very real and widespread anxieties about economic inequality, deindustrialization and stagnant economic growth, his prescriptions are too often simplistic, more costly than he would have us believe and unlikely to come to pass. Do multiple fuck-ups count as experience, and do they--in your feeble mind--guarantee success the second time around? Give me a break.
The Vermont senator has made the race more substantive and has forced his opponent to address issues that might otherwise have gone undiscussed, but in the end he has offered little reason to believe that he would be able to enlist recalcitrant Republicans in Congress in accomplishing his priorities. Rather, he told the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, he would say to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell: “Hey, Mitch, look out the window. There’s a million young people out there now. And they’re following politics in a way they didn’t before. If you want to vote against this legislation, go for it. But you and some of your friends will not have your seats next election.” If only it were that simple. It is that easy. Weren't you around during the Vietnam War moratoriums? Who do you think accomplished that? Wasn't it the citizens' "boots on the grounds" of the Capitol? Also, why do you think Republicans would all of a sudden begin cooperating with Clinton? Is it because she's a hawk as so many Republicans are? Is it because she's a corporatist? There you have no argument but you should make your argument as clear as day and tell your readers that the LA Times wants WAR, WAR, and MORE WAR because that along with increased wealth disparity will guarantee nonpartisanship.
By contrast, Clinton, for all her faults — and they range from a penchant for secrecy to a willingness to modify her positions to suit the popular mood to a less-restrained view of the use of military force than we are entirely comfortable with — is vastly better prepared than Sanders for the presidency. She has The Times’ endorsement in the June 7 California Democratic primary. Now golly gee, how omniscient of the LA Times to not require transparency or consistency when vetting presidential candidates.
Clinton may seem inauthentic to some or to lack that drink-a-beer-with-me quality that voters often look for in a candidate. But she has a grasp of the complexities of government and policy that is unmatched by any of the other candidates who ran for president this year — or by most candidates in most years. She is sober and thoughtful, in possession not just of the facts she needs to make her arguments but of a depth of experience that undergirds her decisions. These qualities are reassuring in juxtaposition to a primary opponent who does not offer, at the end of the day, a serious alternative and, and a likely opponent in the general election who is unprepared, unsuited for the job and dangerous. You mother fuckers, now you've stepped over the line of responsible editorials. You're beginning to sound like the NY Daily News or The Enquirer. I suppose you've tested the candidates on some objective measures. Your kudos here sound like puerile discourses where one teenager says to the other, "man, she gives good head." Good God, people, "a serious alternative" to what? Specifics, God damn it.
From her early days as a children’s rights advocate to her role as an activist first lady in pressing for healthcare reform to her public service in the Senate and as secretary of State, Clinton has demonstrated a steely persistence and a keen intellect. She and Sanders agree on many broad goals, including expanding healthcare, regulating the financial sector and reducing America’s reliance on fossil fuels. But where Sanders offers audacious, utopian solutions, Clinton adopts a more incremental approach that has a better chance of success during a time of divided government and political dysfunction when negotiation and compromise will be more important than ever. Un-fucking-believable. Yeah, send-them-back Hillary is sure a bona fide children's rights advocate. Lot's of cheap talk on healthcare reform sure merits. . .something; but what of public service in the Senate and how is Bernie Sanders service in any way suboptimal? "Steely persistence" will go far with Republicans and "keen intellect" really showed up well with the Greenpeace advocates and the BLM confrontations. You biased pricks.
For example, Sanders wants to establish a single-payer, British style health insurance system he calls “Medicare for all.” Clinton counters with the obvious: It was difficult enough for President Obama to win congressional support for the Affordable Care Act (which many Republicans in Congress still want to repeal) and the emphasis should be on building on and improving on the ACA, not tossing it out and starting from scratch. What’s more, some experts say Sanders’ proposal would cost twice as much as he estimates it will and could increase the size of the federal government by as much as 50%. "Some experts," but what do others say? Do you only cherry pick? Plus, it may have been difficult for Obama but do you not see other factors in play, and what cost is not lessened by the elimination of the middle-man?
When it comes to financial reform, Sanders has proposed a bill to break up financial institutions that regulators have deemed too big to fail. But the measure, which offers no clues as to how the Treasury Department would go about doing so, seems aimed at exacting a punishment on companies at the heart of the last recession, rather than addressing the behavior that caused it. To that end, Clinton has called for strengthening the Dodd-Frank Act signed by Obama in 2010, which had many of the right concepts but not necessarily the right details. What president ever knew the details? What president ever worked in a vacuum? I doubt very much that Senator Sanders would allow the shortcomings of of Dodd-Frank to persist even though one of them is now supporting Hillary--douchebag that he turned out to be--but I digress.
The two candidates offer a stark contrast when they discuss the issues facing the country. Sanders focuses — often in an inspiring way — on grand causes and doesn’t sweat the details. Clinton is acutely conscious of the political and practical obstacles that must be negotiated in order to bring about change. In our view that’s an asset. Yeah, and she is so omniscient that she intimately knows how the evolving Congress will need to be manipulated. Give me a break. . .PLEASE.
Clinton is by no means perfect. On foreign policy, for instance, Sanders has faulted her for voting to authorize President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq and warns that she would be more likely than he would to involve U.S. forces in overseas operations.
He is probably right, and that is a serious concern about the former secretary of State. But when to use military force is a difficult question for any president, and the ideal commander in chief will be neither too hesitant to use force when necessary to defend vital U.S. interests nor so reckless as to regard military action as a first resort. Although Clinton has made mistakes — not only the Iraq vote but also in pressing for military action in Libya as secretary of State — we don’t see her as a reflexive advocate of military force. (Like Sanders, she opposes the use of U.S. ground combat forces in the war against Islamic State.) To the extent that she is less committed to restraint, we hope that she will keep in mind the lessons of recent U.S. escapades in the Middle East, which have been terribly expensive in money and lives and yet have repeatedly failed to achieve their goals. Yeah, let's hope, why not? It has certainly helped in the past.
Clinton’s campaign has been dogged from the start by issues related to transparency. Take the question of what Sanders called those “damn emails” — official messages Clinton sent and received on a private email server while secretary of State. It seems unlikely that she is in danger of criminal prosecution, but the fact that the FBI is investigating at all is embarrassing. The same self-defeating resistance to disclosure is evident in Clinton’s stubborn refusal to release the contents of speeches she delivered while out of public office to Goldman Sachs and other corporate audiences. OK, LA Times, can you tell us why you haven't put out an editorial on the FBI's waste of taxpayer money? Why are they pursuing what you surmise is a Pyrrhic victory over Clinton? You call it "self-defeating" but isn't the truth more like "self-protecting?" No, you are incapable of seeing that.
Clinton also has altered her positions in light of shifting political winds. She has come out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiated by the Obama administration, even though as secretary of State she referred to it (before the final details had been agreed on) as setting “the gold standard in trade agreements.” In 2008, she said that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare, and by rare I mean rare.” This February, after being endorsed by Planned Parenthood, she dropped the “rare.”
Clinton, of course, isn’t the only politician who adjusts some of her positions to suit the politics of the day. (Compare Obama’s “evolution” on same-sex marriage.) Still, the perception that she is malleable has been a disadvantage in her race against Sanders, whose message has been remarkably consistent for decades. If she is the nominee, she will need to remind voters — or convince them for the first time — that, while she is open to compromise and willing to consider new facts, she too has core convictions. Why don't you tell your readers what those "core convictions are?" Namely, they are war, corporatism, and political quantum changes that are the heart and soul of the LA Times.
Compared to the intoxicating altruism of the Sanders’ campaign, Clinton’s candidacy might seem unexciting. But nominating a candidate for president is, or ought to be, serious business. Aren't you confusing Bernie Sanders with Mr. Trump? As Obama himself likely would admit after almost eight years in the White House, there is more to being president than grand promises, whether they are about “hope and change” or a political revolution. We admire Bernie Sanders’ passion for progress and equality, but our endorsement goes to the candidate who is more likely to translate ideals into action. Are you people deaf or incompetent? Bernie Sanders has said repeatedly that he can not do it alone; that he will require the help of the American citizen protester. Every one of us who votes for Senator Sanders is keenly aware of this and quite prepared to follow through. The LA Times love of business as usual does not cut it anymore.
As all the world knows, Clinton would be the first woman elected president of the United States. That would be a joyous, long-awaited, landmark moment in American history after centuries of discrimination and second-class status for half the population. But the real reason to support her is that she is the Democratic candidate most likely to get the job done.
Let me end with my initial post on Twitter over your statement concerning your ideal candidate's "ideals:"
What ideals does she
espouse, LA Times?
The
raising of the min. wage to a whopping $12/hour?
Keeping
ACA "as is" even though it has done little to curtail the exorbitant
costs of healthcare, and may have made it worse?
Making
student loans "more affordable;" whatever that turns out to be?
Keeping
us safe from terrorists by stirring up hornets' nests wherever she can? Here
you admitted a Clinton failing; but, so what, they'd hit NYC before LA, is that
it? Is this worth the benefits of her other "ideals" minimalistic
though they be?
Fixing
the financial sector? This might carry some credibility if she had released her
transcripts but the LA Times is blessed with an abundance of faith and asks its
readers to trust them.
You use the term "vastly" in referring to her
qualifications; by implication she should have won in '08, no? But why don't
you do your readers a real service and talk about the woman's accomplishments. Name one fucking accomplishment, LA Times--just one
fucking accomplishment. Do you think that
decades of simmering has made this woman palatable? Perhaps if she had simmered
in the struggles of the common man but she
has simmered in war and corporatism, and that's why we call for a Bernie
Sanders Revolution!
Comments
Post a Comment