What, Exactly, Makes This a ‘Fringe’ Position?
I can’t get enough of Charles Pierce these days…
False equivalence strikes again in the pages of The New York Times.
In Georgia, a Democrat named Stacey Abrams is running against this Brian Kemp guy, who is a public loon. This is my interpretation of the election. This is the one in the NYT:
More starkly than in most midterm campaigns, the contest between Mr. Kemp, the two-term Republican secretary of state, and Ms. Abrams, a former Democratic leader in the State Legislature, has come to mirror the disorienting polarization of the Trump era and expose the consequences of a primary system that increasingly rewards those who appeal to the fringes.
Fringes, you say?
Each side frames the election of the other in doomsday terms. Mr. Kemp, the Democrats fear, will take Georgia the way of North Carolina and Indiana, which were tarnished by recent legislative battles over issues like gay rights and the use of public restrooms by transgender people. Republicans warn that Ms. Abrams, who hopes to expand Medicaid health coverage for the poor and disabled, will raise taxes they have cut, reverse the state’s job growth, deplete its rainy-day surplus and threaten its superior bond ratings.
Georgians have consistently supported Medicaid expansion, and by large margins, too, right from jump. By what possible standard is this a “fringe” position? I hate it when all the editors show up drunk.
Meanwhile, brother Kemp is the guy who ran this campaign commercial.
Poor Georgia “centrists.” Forced to choose between a (black) woman advocating for an enormously popular program that provides health-care for poor people, and some gun-humping maniac who has a big old truck in case he has to drive criminal illegals back to Honduras. Whatever could The Third Way be?
I’m reminded of that phrase: ‘The liberal media is as liberal as the corporations that own them allow them to be.’
Morning Joe is Exhibit A.
Agreed, it’s all the news that fits the corporate agenda.
Agree.
Additionally, it a good way to make a story. Very lazy. Honestly, I subscribe to the Times, but have been extremely disappointed lately. This was particularly lame and pointless.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/opinion/how-to-talk-to-a-racist.html
The Trump daily circus is endless fodder for the media and allows them to focus on nothing else
REV: You think the Times should publish only opinion columns you agree with? Note: OPINION columns. Plus, I’m pretty sure you agree — more or less — with most of the opinions expressed in those columns. Lot of anti-Trump opinions there.
Don’t be douchey. You know I know the difference and you know what I’m talking about.
The expose of the white supremacist in Ohio was a “normal” NEWS story:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/ohio-hovater-white-nationalist.html?_r=0
Fucking garbage. And how many of these have they done.
Don’t be daft, Nate. They select which “opinions” they run. I don’t need to agree with them, no.
And no I rarely agree with Opinion columns in NYT. I mean lets make a list of the regulars.
Brett Stephens
Ross Douthat
David Brooks
Nick Kristof
Tom Freidman
Maureen Dowd
Washed up, conservative junk. Stale ideas. Boring writing.
Do they have a leftist columnist? Do they have a Marxist columnist?
Even Krugman has to be pulled along kicking and screaming.
You think just because a columnist or column is “anti Trump” I just agree with the premise?
I don’t think that at all. I know you’re an all-or-nothing kind of guy. But better anti-Trump than pro-Trump. We need all the anti-Trump we can get.
I’m not all-or-nothing. I just notice, as the original post suggests, that while we need to sympathize and understand fascist scum and “be civil”, mainstream progressive policies are extreme. Total fucking bullshit.