Washington Post Published Probably the Most Inaccurate Editorial on Bernie's Campaign So Far
I know many of you have seen it already what WaPo did but let's take a look at few things, shall we?
The Washington Post Just Published Probably the Most Inaccurate Editorial on Bernie's Campaign So Far.
The Post, owned by man worth $53.2 billion, really doesn't like Bernie Sanders.
The Washington Post has been on something of an anti-Sanders kick lately. Its latest editorial,
Bernie Sanders’s fiction-filled campaign, is somehow worse than its last one, which derided his single-payer plan in tabloid-like terms. It's entirely predictable that an establishment gatekeeper publication like The Post would not approve of Sanders' relatively radical policy proposals, but the degree to which it keeps offering up hysterical, and often times totally disingenuous critiques, is surprising even by its standards. Let's begin with The Post's first claim:
Mr. Sanders’s tale starts with the bad guys: Wall Street and corporate money. The existence of large banks and lax campaign finance laws explains why working Americans are not thriving, he says, and why the progressive agenda has not advanced. Here is a reality check: Wall Street has already undergone a round of reform, significantly reducing the risks big banks pose to the financial system.
Nothing here to see, folks! The claim that Wall Street is more or less reformed and “too big to fail” is a progressive fantasy. But wait, that’s not what the Washington Post itself said in 2014. As International Business Times’ Andrew Perez noted, The Post published a contradictory op-ed a year-and-a-half ago in, "The Post's View: Bank of America faces a hefty fine, but ‘too big to fail’ still threatens":
Just or not, no one should confuse this pending settlement with a solution to the deeper problem of the U.S. financial system —namely that Bank of America and other institutions remain too big to fail.
So which is it? Is Sanders’ too-big-to-fail rhetoric useful or not? It certainly was to the Washington Post a year and a half ago, but now it's not “reality.”
The op-ed goes on, this time to pooh pooh the idea that radical campaign finance reform would have a meaningful impact on how people perceive progressive policies: "And even with radical campaign finance reform, many Americans and their representatives would still oppose the Sanders agenda."
This is fatuous gaslighting.....
More at link.
