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.
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.
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.
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.
To fascists, anything left of Reagan is “far left”. The Overton window nowadays would probably consider Reagan centrist…
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.
Yeah and he didn’t want to ally with the Russians to defeat his domestic enemies
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.