Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Three more Pinocchios for #Bernocchio Hillary didnt call him unqualified [View all]Armstead
(47,803 posts)21. The Post deserves Pinocchios for itself
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511674401
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/30/the_washington_post_just_published_the_most_inaccurate_editorial_on_bernies_campaign_thus_far_partner/
The ugliest Bernie smear yet: Washington Post shows its corporate colors with new Sanders hit piece
Who'd have thought the establishment paper owned by a libertarian multi-billionaire would take issue with Sanders' populism?
EXCEPRT
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/30/the_washington_post_just_published_the_most_inaccurate_editorial_on_bernies_campaign_thus_far_partner/
The ugliest Bernie smear yet: Washington Post shows its corporate colors with new Sanders hit piece
Who'd have thought the establishment paper owned by a libertarian multi-billionaire would take issue with Sanders' populism?
EXCEPRT
The Washington Post has been on something of an anti-Sanders kick lately. Its latest editorial, Bernie Sanderss fiction-filled campaign, is somehow worse than its last one, which derided his single-payer plan in tabloid-like terms. Its 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. Lets begin with The Posts first claim:
Mr. Sanderss 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, thats not what theWashington 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 Posts 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 its not reality.
That the Posts sole owner, Jeff Bezos, is an arch-libertarian worth $53.2 billion and has a whole host of investments in private health care, well assume is entirely separate from The Post editorial boards recent swath of hysterical Sanders criticism, including these two gems from last week; the first an editorial, the latter ostensibly straight reporting:
The Posts View: Mr. Sanders needs to come clean about the funding for his health-care plan
Most of Bernie Sanderss big ideas are dead-on-arrival in Congress. Do Democrats care?
Notice the tone is the same throughout: Sanders is insane and his ideas will never work. Theres very little discussion of substance or evidence to support the idea that his plans are untenable. Its just asserted as true.
The Posts latest op-ed is just another example of this type of dismissive establishment ideology policing, much of which has animated Sanders anti-establishment appeal. To this extent, perhaps theres nothing more helpful to the Sanders campaign than an oligarch-owned newspaper bashing your every proposal at every turn.
Mr. Sanderss 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, thats not what theWashington 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 Posts 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 its not reality.
That the Posts sole owner, Jeff Bezos, is an arch-libertarian worth $53.2 billion and has a whole host of investments in private health care, well assume is entirely separate from The Post editorial boards recent swath of hysterical Sanders criticism, including these two gems from last week; the first an editorial, the latter ostensibly straight reporting:
The Posts View: Mr. Sanders needs to come clean about the funding for his health-care plan
Most of Bernie Sanderss big ideas are dead-on-arrival in Congress. Do Democrats care?
Notice the tone is the same throughout: Sanders is insane and his ideas will never work. Theres very little discussion of substance or evidence to support the idea that his plans are untenable. Its just asserted as true.
The Posts latest op-ed is just another example of this type of dismissive establishment ideology policing, much of which has animated Sanders anti-establishment appeal. To this extent, perhaps theres nothing more helpful to the Sanders campaign than an oligarch-owned newspaper bashing your every proposal at every turn.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Three more Pinocchios for #Bernocchio Hillary didnt call him unqualified [View all]
stevenleser
Apr 2016
OP
I proudly stand with Steven Leser v2.0.08, that dude was a keen judge of character
Fumesucker
Apr 2016
#5
That was Gov. Rended (D-PA and superdelegate) who said clinton advisor should be fired
Land Shark
Apr 2016
#13
WAPO did and her surrogates did "disquality" him Get over it. It was tit-for tat. Hardly an issue.
snowy owl
Apr 2016
#16
Bernie hit on HIllary with a big personal attach -a LIE and you say get over it. Not likely
riversedge
Apr 2016
#28
Of course she did. She used weasel words like weasels tend to do. She's unfit for public office
ThePhilosopher04
Apr 2016
#25
I don't care what Hillary said. Bernie finally spoke the truth many of us already know.
Kalidurga
Apr 2016
#27
If it comes from "journalist" Steve Leser & The Capehart Gazette, I'm not buying.
DisgustipatedinCA
Apr 2016
#37