What a credulous piece of reporting. No mention of Tea Party being a Koch-seeded astroturf, no mention it was animated by racist hostility to Obama and black people and immigrants in general, no mention of its contempt for women. Complete doofus brain shit nytimes.com/2019/08/28/us/…
Except the Tea Party got EXACTLY what it wanted because it’s nominal opposition to deficits was a PR cover for standard anti-poor partisan GOP politics. The net result of 2010 takeover was gerrymandering, anti-abortion laws, anti-environmentalism, taking healthcare from millions.
“Tea Party failed because deficits are high” is supposed to be some cool liberal gotcha but it glosses over how astroturfed and phony the whole thing was.
NYT has incentive to keep buying the transparently bogus line the Tea Party cared about deficits b/c their reporting in 2009 ate it up. They didn’t spot a Bircherism Koch job at the time and think it best to simply ignore it now and view it all as organic “populist” uprising.
Imagine in the year of lord 2019 still thinking a bunch of foaming lifelong republicans—virtually all of whom now back tax cut and spend happy Trump—were animated not by the election of the first black president but a sudden, genuine and race-blind concern with “deficits”.
In Dec 2017—of the 30 remaining representatives who composed the initial 2010 Tea Party caucus—every single one of them voted for Trump’s deficit-bloating tax cuts. They never cared about deficits and we have proof because they voted that way for 9 years. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NYT's morning newsletter parroting @PatrickKingsley's absurd and deliberately credulous "failure to plan" framing. It wasn't the open pronouncements by Israeli officials they were cutting off food, or the bombing of and propaganda against UNRWA, guys, they just neglected to PLAN!
there is no "transitional authority" because (1) Palestinian militants haven't been defeated and cannot, by definition, be defeated absent ethnic cleansing. (2) Israel is the de facto authority in Gaza and they are committing genocide and believe starving people helps this end
My sense is this is too optimistic. I think emaciated children is a bridge too far PR-wise. There’ll be pressure on Israel to allow the UN to do a fraction of whats needed, then it’ll return to the pre-March 2025 status quo and Dems will go back to ignoring/cheer leading genocide
If one reads the statements the demand isn’t an end to the genocide, or “war,” or an arms embargo or demand Trump compel a lasting ceasefire, it’s a return to the pre March 2025 status quo, a/k/a the NYT editorial board line demanding Washington Bomb Children On A Full Stomach
The Biden WH position, that of the NYT and Washington Post editorial board position, the position of Hillary Clinton, Jeffries, Schumer et al remains the far left of acceptable opinion: Israel Must Bomb Children On a Full Stomach
I know the 2024 Dem pitch for Gaza was 10% less genocide but Trump’s been in office 6 mo’s, and accelerated the genocide for four, and the two most powerful Dems, Schumer and Jeffries haven’t issued a single criticism of Trump’s Gaza policy. Neither has Harris, Biden or Obama.
We have zero evidence of any institutional Dem opposition to Trump’s Gaza policy. At this point this can only be read as agreement. A letter proposed by Rep Tlaib opposing mass starvation in Gaza only garnered 18 Dems. 18. a LETTER. This means 239 democrats didn’t give a shit
I have no idea how Gaza will “play in 2028” but I think telling millions of liberals that caring Too Much—in any systemic way—about emaciated children on their timelines that theyre somehow Doing A Racism is sowing unprecedented amounts of cynicism with unforeseeable consequences
I’m baffled as to what conspiracy they’re going for anymore. MAGA media is playing catch up trying to square the circle of whatever an increasingly senile Trump vomited out that day and I need a whiteboard to keep track of what the Deep State is supposedly doing now
feel like if Trump just said “there’s nothing left in the Epstein case, it’s closed, of course Dems are going to imply what they want but what about Bill Gates and Clinton etc” it’d be done by now. But then he started breathlessly defending himself against allegations no one made
This is where superficial generational discourse gets you: An AOC and Bernie-endorsed candidate wins and it’s somehow an indictment on Mamdani—who didnt endorse anyone and has nothing to do with the race. The similarities, like Weisman and Healy’s analysis, are purely superficial
To paraphase a @BrandyLJensen classic: @jackhealyNYT has the comprehension of a dog, he can parse tone but not content.
The NYT wants so bad Mamdani’s win to be Young Hip Gen Z Guy Does Vertical Camera Thing and nothing else. This is an ideological axiom they will just assert over and over again because if it’s not true they are forced to acknowledge a much deeper rot in the liberal establishment
There’s been 90000 of these billionaire funded “we just want to win” “drop liberal orthodoxy” “big tent” front projects launched in the last six months. More consulting grifts designed to push the party right under the auspices of Savvy Pragmatism
Definitely need to do a break down. So much Silicon Valley and billionaire money funneling into the same consult class losers to “energize” “hard nose” “youthful” democrats who can “win in Trump country” who will courageously defend crypto and Israel