The establishment strikes back: The New York and Washington chattering class thinks Walz is too far left (robertreich.substack.com)

submitted 3 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

The New York Times’s Nate Cohn, for example, says Walz “doesn’t help compensate for what figures to be [Kamala Harris’s] core weakness with swing voters: her … staking out progressive positions.”

Cohn goes on to assert that Walz

“unexpectedly became the veepstakes favorite for many progressives, who were often outright opposed to Mr. Shapiro or Mr. Kelly” and that “the fight was sufficiently intense for Mr. Walz’s selection to be seen as a material win for progressives.” As a result it “won’t assuage concerns that she’s too far to the left.”

This is utter rubbish. Who is concerned that Kamala is too far to the left? Cohn imagines that the typical voter is somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. But there’s no longer a middle. When the Republican Party has adopted authoritarian fascism, what does it mean to be “too far to the left?”

Rekt. Good on RR for calling out Cohn's naked laundering of partisan bias into mainstream journalism. His article was mealy-mouthed establishment horseshit, as was his navel-gazing follow up.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 20 points 3 months ago

Every time I hear anyone talking about how Harris and/or Walz are "so far to the left" it makes me want to vote for them even harder.

Walz was absolutely correct when he talked about his policies in Minnesota being "common sense." Because liberalism and progressivism is sensible.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 9 points 3 months ago

There is such a thing as “too far left” in US politics. You could say that voting for anyone who will continue America’s support for genocide is unacceptable, even if the alternative is violent naked fascism. You could say that we should arm ourselves against the Oathkeepers and attack them physically if they come to our city. You could say that all police agencies are an open force for evil and should be abolished. Those are real things that people think, that right or wrong, I think someone could say are “far left” if a US presidential candidate started saying them.

School lunch and unions are not “far left”. Honestly, it might be good for the base, but I think all they’re accomplishing by saying those are “far left” is making “left” sound good to people.

[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 months ago

To fascists, anything left of Reagan is "far left". The Overton window nowadays would probably consider Reagan centrist...

[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

My brother in Christ, Reagan is far left to these assholes

His Shining Beacon on the Hill Speech would have drawn death threats apon him.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 3 months ago

Yeah and he didn’t want to ally with the Russians to defeat his domestic enemies

this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024

57 points (87.0% liked)

politics

19148 readers

2082 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News