Daily Archives: October 21, 2018

Bernie battered by Beltway hacks

Bloomberg news photo

A candidate who actually would serve the best interests of the American people instead of just paying lip service to that must be destroyed, you see. (Bernie Sanders is pictured above introducing a “Medicare for All” single-payer healthcare bill in September 2017.)

Politico’s David Siders still is hot on the Bernie beat, with these two headlines over the past few days: “Sanders Admits His Age Is an Issue in 2020” and “Sanders Hints at Reckoning with Warren Over 2020 Ambitions,” two rather sensationalist headlines that don’t quite live up to the “news” stories to which they are attached.

Of his (and others candidates’) age, Bernie, who is 77, is quoted as having said, “It’s part of a discussion, but it has to be part of an overall view of what somebody is and what somebody has accomplished.

“Look, you’ve got people who are 50 years of age who are not well, right? You’ve got people who are 90 years of age who are going to work every day doing excellent work. And obviously, age is a factor. But it depends on the overall health and well being of the individual.”

Agreed. I’d take a senior citizen who is a true progressive (and in decent physical and mental health) over a younger, pro-corporate centrist sellout (Hi, Kamala! Hi, Cory!) any day.

So while the headline “Sanders Admits His Age Is an Issue in 2020” is, I suppose, technically and denotatively true, its connotation easily could be that Sanders himself says that (maybe) he’s too old, which, of course, he does not.

Also, of course, the first paragraph of “Sanders Admits His Age Is an Issue in 2020” is this: “Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday agreed with Joe Biden — a fellow septuagenarian [Biden is 75 years old] — that age will be an issue if he runs for president in 2020.”

Hmmm. Why isn’t establishmentarian Biden also mentioned in the headline, then? Are we protecting Old Uncle Joe for some reason?

“Sanders Hints at Reckoning with Warren Over 2020 Ambitions” also doesn’t live up to its hype. It sets up a conflict between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren that apparently doesn’t actually exist.

Again, perhaps the headline technically and denotatively is true, but “reckoning” is a pretty strong word. This is how the “news” story “backs up” its sensationalist headline:

Asked whether he and other progressive contenders should hold talks in an effort to ensure one of them prevails, Sanders told Politico, “I suspect that in the coming weeks and months, there will be discussions.”

Not much actual drama there, so let’s put “reckoning” in the headline!

Politico adds: “The jockeying among progressive candidates has sparked worry among some hard-left activists, who fear they could split the vote in the 2020 primary, ceding ground to a more moderate Democrat.”

Perhaps, to the extent that that many people outside of us political nerds are even thinking about 2020.

But, it seems to me, the 2020 field will sort itself out. We don’t need to resort to the traditional, tried-and-failed, anti-democratic “Democratic” tactic of trying to push some candidates (usually the left-of-center candidates, of course) out of the running before the contest has even begun.

If we’re true advocates of democracy, we’ll let the people — not craven party hacks — decide.

That said, if we’re going to make it about Bernie vs. Liz, I’ve made it clear here that I support Bernie. Not only does he deserve the nomination that he was cheated out of in 2016, but he is much more likely to beat Pussygrabber than is Warren.

For starters, Bernie’s nationwide favorability ratings long have been much higher than have Warren’s.

In fact, Bernie’s high nationwide favorability rankings have been unmatched by any other politico.

The David Siders set don’t like Bernie, but we, the people, do.

Bernie always polled much better against Pussygrabber than Queen Billary ever did, and look what happened with that.

I have nothing against Warren, but I just don’t see her beating Pussygrabber, and it’s more important to me that fascist Pussygrabber be denied a second term than it is that we have our first female president.

If we can have both — Pussygrabber’s defeat and our first female president — at the same time, that’s great, but thus far I don’t see a female candidate who is likely to win in 2020.

That’s just the cold, hard political fact. Don’t predictably lazily and knee-jerkedly call me a “sexist,” because I would be fine with Elizabeth Warren as president. I just don’t think that she can get there. Not in 2020, anyway.

In the meantime, despite his runaway popularity, expect Bernie Sanders to continue to be treated horribly by the members of the Beltway media, who see pro-corporate politics as their best bet to maintain their petty positions of power, carrying water for their corporate masters.

Because it’s not about the people, you see; it’s about the corporations, which, we are told, are people too.

P.S. In fairness to David Siders, usually some editor determines the headline, but if inaccurate, sensationalist headlines routinely are put on his submissions (and they are), then he needs to decide whether or not he still wants to work for Politico.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized