The Washington Post is NOT a liberal newspaper! Yes let it be said: in today’s world the paper that broke open the Watergate scandal is a bland, right-wing shill. If the same attitude at the Post had prevailed in the 1970s, Watergate would just be another hotel in Washington-only affordable to people who make the kind of money that, well, many editors and journalists at the Post make.
Even worse, the WaPo is very anti-union- just look at how they treat their own employees. The mailers at the Post haven’t had a raise in years. Of course, if there are no mailers, the WaPo doesn’t get out to its subscribers. The folks who make the revenues happen at WaPo are not getting their fair share of that revenue.
See here for more.
I’ve also seen some postings here about Joe Klein and how ineffectual he is and how he shills for BushCo. Not only is he as bad as you might have suspected, he’s worse. In Klein’s view, what is needed in America today is “a ‘Party of Sanity’, representing the pragmatic centrism of the business and professional elites”….
“The Party of Sanity has rallied in recent weeks. The first sign was the bipartisan agreement by 14 U.S. Senators to preserve the filibuster rule while allowing a vote on some of President Bush’s more conservative judicial appointments. Some experts opined that this marked the beginning of a third force in the Senate—the Philadelphia Inquirer even suggested it held the potential for “a third party of the center”—but what it really marked was the restoration of business as usual: control of the Senate by moderate consensus.
“A second sign came on May 29, when the New York Times reported that 24 leaders of groups ranging from the conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the liberal AFL-CIO had been meeting secretly for seven months because they were worried about the sketchy, inefficient quality of American health care and wanted to figure out a proposal for universal coverage. Two weeks earlier, Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Newt Gingrich, the yin and yang of politics in the 1990s, announced that they had found common ground on the issue as well. The renewed search for a comprehensive health-care solution reflects a deeper tide of concern in corporate America over the debilitating costs of providing health insurance and pensions for employees. These concerns are accompanied by general alarm in the Party of Sanity over the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush Administration, the continuing frustration over the war in Iraq, and the Administration’s failure to lead instead of attempting to dominate an Alliance of Sanity in the world.
“Is it possible that these victories represent the glimmerings of a blissfully reasonable new era? The front runners for the presidency in both parties, Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton, are essentially Sane sorts. But both will have to navigate the partisan interests, especially the secular and religious extremists, in their respective parties.”
Of course there is the totally inaccurate criticism of Kerry, Edwards, and the Democrats.
“Ronald Reagan tapped into a vein of conservative social populism that changed the G.O.P., and a series of effete intellectual candidacies—from Eugene McCarthy’s to John Kerry’s—has reflected the Democrats’ transformation into a party dominated by well-educated coastal professionals. In the 2004 election, Bush beat Kerry among the white working class by some 24 points.
“Populists of both strains tend to believe that the system is rigged by dark and powerful forces that prevent the little guy from getting ahead, which means they tend to be angry. They also tend to be dividers rather than uniters. Even the nice-guy populism attempted by former Senator John Edwards in the last presidential campaign had a divisive edge. His theme was “two Americas.” Pessimism, anger and unsubtle divisiveness tend to be total nonstarters in American politics.”
Hmmm, so that gentleman who helped Kerry win 40% of the rural vote was, oh what was his name?” Oh yeah, the only two candidates since 1976 to outdo Kerry in rural areas? Clinton in 1996 and Michael Dukakis (yep, that Massachusetts liberal) in 1988 (both men got 44% of the rural vote).
As far as the white working class is concerned, Klein uses the deeply flawed method of measuring class votes by education levels. The “white working class” Klein refers to are simply whites without a four year college degree.
According to this definition the following college dropouts (okay some never even went to college) are part of the white working class: Bill Gates, Paris Hilton, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Britney Spears, Eminem, Madonna, Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson, Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, etc. Meantime, a college-educated teacher making less than $40,000 a year is considered to be part of the “upper-class.”
Does this seem weird to anybody here? The fact is Kerry won 63% of the vote among voters from households making 0-15K a year, 57% of the 15K-30K a year income group, and beat Bush 51%-49% among the $30,000-$50,000 group. Kerry totals among all households making less than 50K: 55%-44%. In all these income groups Kerry outperformed both Clinton and Gore.
57% of households (but unfortunately, only 45% of the 2004 voting electorate) make less than $50,000 a year! I wonder if Klein knows that as he jets from Westchester County in NY to Georgetown and back? I doubt it. Klein merely cites this invalid statistic for one main reason: it validates his own wealth and elitism. Go ahead Joe, benefit all you want from Bush’s tax cuts while others go hungry and without health care- through their votes the “middle class” has allegedly said you should grab all the green you can get (remember Klein was a proponent for Social Security privatization-and has reported in the past that Bill Clinton was ready to privatize SS before being engulfed in the impeachment scandal)*
After all the truth is just to painful even for a soulless shill like Klein to admit: Bush won by massive turnout among the 43% of households making over $50,000-they were 55% of the voting electorate in 2004. Not to mention Bush did better among this group (with his largest margins coming from those who make well in excess of $100,000) than Kerry did among the under 50K crowd. If it wasn’t for “secular elitists” and the “religious” voters that Klein condemns, Klein would be facing that most terrible thing: higher taxes on people actually like himself.
Check out this response to Klein column from David Sirota.
*According to Klein, Clinton was moving, before Monica Lewinsky derailed him, toward significant changes in Social Security and Medicare—especially Medicare, for which he was ready to support a market-oriented approach but retreated at the behest of congressional liberals who supported him during the impeachment fiasco.”
Care to wonder who Klein would like to see as president if it is to be a Democrat?