Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 20, 2020

The Democratic primary contest is often portrayed as a tussle between moderates and progressives. To some extent that's true. But when we spent significant time with the leading candidates, the similarity of their platforms on fundamental issues became striking.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is obviously a non-endorsement.

#1 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-20 10:36 AM | Reply

Who gives a crap?

The NYT is ridiculously biased when it comes to political endorsements.

When was the last time they endorsed a Republican for POTUS? I'm pretty sure it's been well over a half century.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-20 10:41 AM | Reply

To be honest, this makes zero sense to me in that they are desperately trying to appeal to both the far left and the middle.

#3 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2020-01-20 02:22 PM | Reply

These were/are my top two choices. From my point of view, both have been consistently impressive. Anyone trashing Klobuchar obviously has not spent and effort listening to her and seeing how she presents. On the other hand I understand why a lot of centrist democrats are uncomfortable with Warren. She is a liberal. I fully support her.

#4 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-20 02:47 PM | Reply

I admit Klobuchar did better than I thought she would.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-01-20 03:11 PM | Reply

- When was the last time they endorsed a Republican for POTUS?

When was the last time a Republican deserved to be endorsed for President?

The criminal Nixon, the traitor Reagan, the dimwit GW.... or Trump the Trifecta?

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 03:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Warren or Klobuchar either one would be a million percent improvement over what we have now. As would Bernie or Biden.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 03:24 PM | Reply

I don't approve of Bernie or Biden any more.

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-01-20 04:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

But your personal approval isn't necessary for you to support either of them over Trump... or to sit on your hands or throw away your vote.

Which is the difference between you and some self-deluded people who put their personal preference above what's best for their country and it's people.

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 04:05 PM | Reply

#9 You are correct. I would vote for the best candidate in a race between trump and whoever. At the moment, we still get to voice our opinions on who that should be. I will support whoever the dem nominee is.

#10 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-01-20 04:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

I would vote for the best candidate in a race between trump and whoever. - Bb

So another vote for Trump!

#11 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-20 04:58 PM | Reply

#11

Some village somewhere is missing it's... well, you know.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-20 05:13 PM | Reply

I hope Warren's DOJ prosecutes Trump. It would be good for the country. A reminder that truth and honesty actually do matter to most Americans.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-20 05:19 PM | Reply

To signal that the decision had been made, the NYT's lit a vagina scented candle.

#14 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2020-01-20 05:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

It does seem like an attempt to pander to the "girls rule, boys drool" bandwagon that Warren jumped on last week.

#15 | Posted by sentinel at 2020-01-21 12:29 AM | Reply

Out of touch upper middle class New Yorkers try to immanentize the party choice by boosting these two.

These are the least offensive candidates to the bourgeoisie in the Democratic party while possibly satisfying some of the left.

Warren and Klobuchar don't have the money or the fan base of Bernie, Warren at least is saying the right things for the most part. Biden will lose, and horribly at that. He has neither the enthusiasm or the cash.

#16 | Posted by dibblda at 2020-01-21 12:52 AM | Reply

This is obviously a non-endorsement.

#1 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Why? This is how it should be done.

Tell me the candidates who are decent enough to elect and stop pretending one is ultimately so much better on everything than the rest. Then tell me why the others are useless pieces of human garbage to be avoided at all costs.

Who am I going to do okay with leading the country and who should I just say hell no to?

If that means you give a passing grade to 6-7 candidates, that's fine. That's how voters think. In the last election, I would have been okay voting for several of the Democratic candidates and several of the Republican candidates. Hell, if Kasich got the primary nod, I would have been voting for him over Clinton and Bernie.

#17 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-21 11:55 AM | Reply

Warren and Klobuchar don't have the money or the fan base of Bernie
#16 | POSTED BY DIBBLDA AT 2020-01-21 12:52 AM | FLAG:

This is simply not true. There is plenty of interest for other candidates. Biden has led consistently, but you're not calling for Bernie to drop out. Why? www.realclearpolitics.com

#18 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2020-01-21 12:45 PM | Reply

And for what it is worth... these two individuals are not the best candidates because they are women, but entirely apart and separate from that fact. The sad thing is that Republicans and the haters are going to try and claim that it is because they are women that people support either of them. Rather than acknowledge the quality and substance of each of these candidates, those who oppose them will try to mischaracterize their support as being based on identity politics.

#19 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-21 01:07 PM | Reply

"The sad thing is that Republicans and the haters are going to try and claim that it is because they are women that people support either of them."

You know that's got to be worth at least a couple percentage points. In a tight race it could be decisive.

#20 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-01-21 01:16 PM | Reply

these two individuals are not the best candidates because they are women, but entirely apart and separate from that fact

Since Warren's platform is virtually identical to Bernie's, and she lacks the authenticity he has, i have to wonder what makes Warren any better of a candidate.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 01:18 PM | Reply

"i have to wonder what makes Warren any better of a candidate."

2016 resentment probably.

#22 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-01-21 01:20 PM | Reply

Joe, many of us disagree with you. Warren has been laying out her own ideas for numerous issues for a long time now. In fact, I doubt there has been any other candidate as willing to go out on a limb in terms of floating policy ideas at this juncture. She is authentic. You may not be enamored of her. You may disagree with her. You may be annoyed that she is an alternative to Sanders. But she is definitely authentic.

Again though, I wish to resist tearing down any other Democratic candidate in order to boost Warren. I refuse to say anything negative about Sanders.

#23 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-21 01:22 PM | Reply

#21 Fair point, Joe.

In the primary the MSM is pretty obviously biased against Sanders.

It was the same in 16.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 01:25 PM | Reply

Trump is going to nickname Warren: Dishonest Injun

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 01:27 PM | Reply

No doubt there was, and is a lot of bias against Sanders. I try never to underestimate the power of anti-Semitism nor age-ism in American society. Just as I never doubt the power of misogyny as it relates to female candidates. These are very real phenomena. These are the types of challenges both Warren and Sanders have unfairly had to face. The fact that they are both excellent candidates has nothing to do with their gender, their age or their religious background. Only low-lifes trying to play the game of identity politics pins their support on such factors.

#26 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-21 01:29 PM | Reply

Warren has been laying out her own ideas for numerous issues for a long time now. In fact, I doubt there has been any other candidate as willing to go out on a limb in terms of floating policy ideas at this juncture

She has largely followed Bernie's lead on how far left to go. If you won't acknowledge that you are not honest. It's that simple.

She is authentic. You may not be enamored of her. You may disagree with her. You may be annoyed that she is an alternative to Sanders. But she is definitely authentic.

She is a former Republican. You may not like that. It might hurt your feelings. But it renders her less authentic than Sanders. Sorry.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 01:51 PM | Reply

Why be "sorry"? Nothing wrong with you having your point of view and your preferences. But let's neither of us pretend that on any objective level either one of us is "correct" and the other is wrong in terms who should be the nominee. Disagreements which divide us should not be weaponized in attacks against other candidates or their supporters. Anyone can snipe on another candidate they do not support. Hopefully, we can stay above that and keep our eyes on the general election. As you say, "you may not like that. It might hurt your feelings. Sorry".

#28 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-21 02:00 PM | Reply

Saying a former Republican is less authentic a progressive than someone who's been a progressive for 40+ years is not a "point of view." It's as close to objective a fact as you'll ever see in politics. Your inability to acknowledge reality is not very convincing.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 02:12 PM | Reply

Your desire to attack Elizabeth Warren is convincing. Have at it. I'm not gonna play that game. Democrats need to not be sniping at one another's candidates.

#30 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-21 02:14 PM | Reply

Saying a former Republican is less authentic a progressive than someone who's been a progressive for 40+ years is not a "point of view." It's as close to objective a fact as you'll ever see in politics. Your inability to acknowledge reality is not very convincing.

Just because someone has a change of heart/mind doesn't make them less authentic than someone who has been consistent over the years. Just because someone became a Christian 15 years ago, for example, doesn't mean they would be less of an authentic Christian today than someone who has been a Christian for 40 years.

#31 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 02:21 PM | Reply

Democrats need to not be sniping at one another's candidates.

#30 | POSTED BY MODER8

During the general - yes - unify. During the primary - it's exactly what they should be doing. Warren and Sanders should be attacking each other right now.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 02:24 PM | Reply

Just because someone has a change of heart/mind doesn't make them less authentic than someone who has been consistent over the years.

Do you know what authentic means?

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 02:28 PM | Reply

Do you know what authentic means?

#33 | POSTED BY JOE

What Gal was saying is that because someone's views evolve (this applies to Sanders too as his views have evolved) doesn't make one inauthentic.

Having said that, as it pertains to evaluating these two, I find Sanders to be far more honest than Warren.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 02:48 PM | Reply

I know what she's saying. And i think her argument fundamentally misunderstands what "authenticity" means, especially as it pertains to politics.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 02:53 PM | Reply

"What Gal was saying is that because someone's views evolve (this applies to Sanders too as his views have evolved) doesn't make one inauthentic."

Yes.

#36 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 02:54 PM | Reply

"I know what she's saying. And i think her argument fundamentally misunderstands what "authenticity" means, especially as it pertains to politics."

Nulli is new to supporting Republicans/conservatives. I don't think that makes him any less authentic in his support than Mackris. Both seem equally committed to me today. I often find nulli's change of heart puzzling but not inauthentic. So, yeah, maybe I'm not understanding the use of authenticity in a political context in the same way you are.

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2020-01-21 03:00 PM | Reply

A politician who is so "authentic" that they can't ever change their mind is a disaster waiting to happen. Nothing is totally black and white, times change, politics change, a great politician is one who can compromise to get the best possible outcome for the people. Barrack Obama didn't please everyone with Obamacare but he saved thousands (millions?) of lives. I'd vote for him again.

#38 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-21 03:01 PM | Reply

I know what she's saying. And i think her argument fundamentally misunderstands what "authenticity" means, especially as it pertains to politics.

#35 | POSTED BY JOE

Do you honestly think that the command-control Socialism that Sanders advocated in the '70's and '80's is the exact same as what he's advocating today?

Does he was poetic about the USSR, where he went for his honeymoon?

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:02 PM | Reply

A politician who is so "authentic" that they can't ever change their mind is a disaster waiting to happen. Nothing is totally black and white, times change, politics change, a great politician is one who can compromise to get the best possible outcome for the people. ...

#38 | POSTED BY DANNI

Very well-stated. NW.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:03 PM | Reply

The way i view political authenticity is that voters want to believe that a candidate has sincerely held beliefs, means what they say, and is not simply an opportunist who chose an alternate path because it was more politically viable. If somebody holds one set of beliefs and then changes them midstream, it provides voters with an opening to doubt that the candidate actually believes this latest set of beliefs, at least as compared to someone who has never changed from day one.

I can't believe i'm even explaining this, but i find myself saying that very frequently these days at the DR.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 03:05 PM | Reply

To Gal's and Danni's point - when first arrived on this site I was opposed to gay marriage. When I expressed my opposition I was met with a bunch of counter-arguments that I came to view as superior to mine. I ended up evolving on the issue and am now (and have been for many years) a supporter of it.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:05 PM | Reply

Do you honestly think that the command-control Socialism that Sanders advocated in the '70's and '80's is the exact same as what he's advocating today?

He's certainly a lot closer to where he's been since day one than any former Republican, which is all i'm saying since we're talking about a comparison of two specific people.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 03:06 PM | Reply

#42 Congratulations. I would view someone who supported gay marriage since 1970 to be a more authentic advocate for that position than you, and i really don't understand how this is even arguable.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 03:08 PM | Reply

He's certainly a lot closer to where he's been since day one than any former Republican, which is all i'm saying since we're talking about a comparison of two specific people.

#43 | POSTED BY JOE A

As far as inauthenticity I think Warren's problem is about her personal life and past. Granted, on the policy side she does herself no favors when lying about the cost of her single payer plan.

When comparing the two I find Sanders to be more honest about who he is. I don't like his policies but I am pretty confident how he'd use the bully pulpit and Executive powers if elected.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:09 PM | Reply

#42 Congratulations. I would view someone who supported gay marriage since 1970 to be a more authentic advocate for that position than you, and i really don't understand how this is even arguable.

#44 | POSTED BY JOE

Up until 2012 Joe Biden and Barack Obama were publicly opposed to gay marriage yet they did FAR more to further and advance its cause than any advocate dating back to 1970.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:12 PM | Reply

#45 I agree with you, but it kind of strays from what i'm getting at here.

My bottom line is that if i want the most authentically progressive candidate for President, i am voting for Bernie Sanders. He is easily the most believably progressive person and i can trust that he, over all other candidates, will be least likely to deviate from what he promises his positions are after being elected.

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 03:12 PM | Reply

My bottom line is that if i want the most authentically progressive candidate for President, i am voting for Bernie Sanders. He is easily the most believably progressive person and i can trust that he, over all other candidates, will be least likely to deviate from what he promises his positions are after being elected.

#47 | POSTED BY JOE

Yes - that is how I see it as well.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:13 PM | Reply

Up until 2012 Joe Biden and Barack Obama were publicly opposed to gay marriage yet they did FAR more to further and advance its cause than any advocate dating back to 1970.

Gay marriage was given to America by five Supreme Court justices, not Barack Obama or Joe Biden. And again, i'm not talking about outcomes - i'm talking about who is the most believable advocate for a position, and it is undeniable that someone who has supported gay marriage since 1970 is more believable an advocate than someone who just decided they're okay with it yesterday.

#49 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 03:14 PM | Reply

#49 Yes - I agree here as well.

My point is that in a general sense evolving a viewpoint after being exposed to a better argument is a good thing - it shows open-mindedness. In a specific sense - the authenticity of Warren vs Sanders - I think Sanders is more authentic. I'm pretty sure you understand that nuanced differences here.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:17 PM | Reply

I think being open-minded can be a good thing, but it has very little to do with authenticity and can actually detract from it in some circumstances.

I will probably be ridiculed for this, but in today's political age i view open-mindedness as a negative. I am tired of establishment incrementalism. I am tired of compromise with a party i now view as harmful to the vast majority of Americans. I don't want an open-minded President. I want one who will run roughshod over Trumpism.

#51 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 03:21 PM | Reply

Up until #51 I was in an uncomfortable amount of agreement with you, Joe. In fact, I was about to ask you to insult me just to make things feel more normal.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:25 PM | Reply

I don't want an open-minded President. I want one who will run roughshod over Trumpism.

#51 | POSTED BY JOE

It's really difficult to do with all of our checks and balances. Legislating is hard and it requires compromise.

Phone and pen governance has become vogue, but it's short-lasted once power changes hands. On a weekly basis I see threads ripping the Trump admin for some new bureaucratic rule (which carries the weight of law) and then when I click the link it's not actually a new rule but an elimination of a rule enacted by the Obama administration. With rare exceptions policy permanence necessitates legislation, not an E.O.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:29 PM | Reply

"in today's political age i view open-mindedness as a negative."

That's because open mindedness has become synonymous with "there were good people on both sides."

Another example is the Goatman/GOP take on global warming: Can't say yet, need more data, climate has always changed.

It's closed mindedess, masquerading as moderation and centrism.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 03:33 PM | Reply

#54 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

My guess is that you actually believe less than half of what you post.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:46 PM | Reply

Not sure I follow you.
Got some examples of things I posted, that I don't believe in?

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 03:48 PM | Reply

Not sure I follow you.
Got some examples of things I posted, that I don't believe in?

#56 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Sure!

Here you go:

drudge.com

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 03:50 PM | Reply

#57 I laughed.

#58 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-21 03:58 PM | Reply

Well, you're completely off your rocker then, JeffJ.
Or just too lazy to be a good troll.
Probably both, come to think of it.

"And it's not like the south is ripe with places to hike or go mountain biking., things I'm able to do here in Germany on any given day."
I would certainly agree that Europe has more bike paths than America.
It's almost like there's some kind of connection, between investing in public infrastructure and improving public health...
POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2020-01-21 03:36 PM

^
I certainly believe that.

"in today's political age i view open-mindedness as a negative."
That's because open mindedness has become synonymous with "there were good people on both sides."
Another example is the Goatman/GOP take on global warming: Can't say yet, need more data, climate has always changed.
It's closed mindedess, masquerading as moderation and centrism.
POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2020-01-21 03:33 PM

^
I certainly believe that too.

"how many witnesses were called that received no attempts to block?"
Who cares?
The important thing is, how many were blocked.
POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2020-01-21 03:28 PM

^
I believe that as well.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 03:59 PM | Reply

Well, you're completely off your rocker then, JeffJ.
Or just too lazy to be a good troll.
Probably both, come to think of it.

^
Of this I'm certain.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 04:00 PM | Reply

#57 I laughed.

#58 | POSTED BY JOE

Cool!

I'm kind of bummed though. I was really hoping you would have thrown out a random personal insult on the heels of #52 but without referencing that post.

I was planning on treating that hypothetical insult as being cathartic.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 04:01 PM | Reply

#60 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That was about as good of a response as I could have imagined.

Well-played.

#62 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 04:02 PM | Reply

I'll be here whenever you want to have a serious conversation.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 04:04 PM | Reply

I'll be here whenever you want to have a serious conversation.

#63 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That's good to know.

I was serious about #62 - you really did play that well.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-21 04:12 PM | Reply

"Having said that, as it pertains to evaluating these two, I find Sanders to be far more honest than Warren."

Honest?

His omission of facts regarding his MFA plan comes off to me as brutally dishonest. I would call it a false bill of sale. Just like when he refers to western Europe as the model to emulate when he has not once mentioned the introduction of a stiff Value Added Tax, which is a key indicator of whatever successes western European countries have achieved.

I think the article pretty much nailed Bernie.

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-21 04:24 PM | Reply

"Just like when he refers to western Europe as the model to emulate when he has not once mentioned the introduction of a stiff Value Added Tax"

We spend a higher percentage of our GDP on health care, than the VAT is.
There's no need for a VAT, because we're already spending more than the VAT.
We're just spending it on the wrong thing, which is dividend checks and stock buybacks and supporting tens of thousands of insurance companies.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-21 05:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bernie would make a better POTUS, but his weakness is he is a zealot. He will be baited into alienating dem voters by clever wedge issues.

#67 | Posted by bored at 2020-01-21 10:00 PM | Reply

"There's no need for a VAT, because we're already spending more than the VAT."

We don't have a VAT, champ. So I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

"We're just spending it on the wrong thing, which is dividend checks and stock buybacks and supporting tens of thousands of insurance companies."

And we're currently "free" to stop paying those things anytime we choose. A choice we would be denied under Comrade Bernie.

But more to the point at hand, how successful do you think Bernie would be if he floated a VAT to pay for all of his grand schemes?

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-22 05:36 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort