They say familiarity breeds
contempt, and this could explain Elizabeth Warren’s poor showing in the New
Hampshire primary yesterday, right in her own “backyard.” I’ve noted previously
commentary from the Boston Herald dating
backing before she decided to enter the race for president that explored her
habit of lying and fabricating, while the Boston
Globe, though generally supportive of her, was forced to admit that her “hubris
and self-delusion” did not impress New Hampshire voters. Her “girl-power shout-out”
to Amy Klobuchar was another example of
her willingness to undermine her credibility as a “progressive” with “principles” if it furthers her gender victim game;
remember that Klobuchar was the only candidate at last week’s debate who said
she would not support a “socialist.” Desperate to save her campaign, Warren is
now pushing a “bridge” strategy, which only underlines her phoniness to voters
who thought she was “authentic.”
Why is Warren failing? If you
listen to her, she is Hillary 2.0, blaming everyone but herself, but on “sexism”
most of all. Katie Pavlich observed that “In an attempt to court voters and
score political points, Warren has repeatedly painted herself as a victim. The
stories she’s told aren’t true, yet she keeps telling them. In the age of
authentic populism, it’s a wonder why she continues to do so.” Jeff Jacoby of
the usually friendly Globe observed
that “Well, politicians engage in all kinds of
transparent gimmicks, and if Warren wants to pretend that a woman running for
high office in America is something unusual and wonderful, more power to her.
Pinky swears with little girls? That’s actually kind of charming. But there is nothing charming about the way Warren and her
allies loudly cry ‘sexism!’ at the least hint of criticism or disapproval.” Jacoby
noted that if Warren “can’t stand the heat” of even the slightest criticism
without bringing up the “sexism” charge, then she should “get out of the
kitchen,” as Harry S. Truman would say. Brad Polumbo of the Washington Examiner has chimed in
about Warren’s parade of “fake stunts,” as she appears to be “seeking sympathy
when she knows she can’t get ahead on her merits.”
In The Hill, James Barnett wrote that working class voters “recognize
the difference between the sincerity of (Bernie) Sanders and the sanctimony of
Warren. After recalling an anecdote of Warren participating in a St. Patrick’s
Day parade in South Boston, when one observer shouted out to her that he was
one of those “middle class” people who were getting “hammered” drinking beer, “these
were the kind of “street smart voters” who “can sense a phony when they see
one, and Warren is a fraud of the first order. Whether it is the uproar over
her wine cave hypocrisy, her false claim of being Native American to gain a leg
up in her teaching career, or her faux outrage at big corporations she used to
collect huge paychecks from, she will say or do anything to get ahead.”
Monmouth University polling seems to bear this out; her “favorability” rating
among Democratic voters has fallen 22 percent since just this past November.
On the other hand, people know
that Bernie Sanders is not a “phony”; the Monmouth polling shows that his
favorability rating has remained constant—and like the turtle over the hare,
his consistency has put him ahead of his competitors in favorability. His
consistency of principles is why voters either cheer him or fear him. “Like him
or not,” Barnett goes on, “Sanders is anything but fake. He has been singing
off the same song sheet for a half century. You will not find any big
corporations on his resume. His disdain for millionaires and billionaires is as
fervent as ever, even as he has become one. He does not shrink from his ideas
out of political expediency. He believes what he says, as wild as it may sound.
With the Cold War in the rear view mirror, many culturally conservative blue
collar types can look past his ideological extremism to see someone promising
to shake up the status quo bigly.” If Sanders is the Democratic nominee despite
every effort to stop him, the question for voters is do they want another term
for a power-mad megalomaniac who is just this side of psychotic, or someone
with moral and ethical principles that are unquestioned. It shouldn’t be that
hard of a choice.
However, over at MSNBC, the
establishment “liberals” are lining up like deer in voters’ headlights to stop
Sanders whatever the cost to their credibility. With Warren fading, the “moderate” Klobuchar is the new favorite. The problem of course is that like Pete
Buttigieg, Klobuchar has a decided credibility issue with minority voters,
which is not a good thing in states where minorities constitute the majority of
Democratic voters. The Monmouth poll shows minority voters favoring Sanders by
8 points over Joe Biden, while other polling shows black support for Klobuchar
and Buttigieg at zero percent, or close to it, which might be a “hindrance” for
their chances in Southern/Southwestern states and California. They have only
their past history to blame.
On the other hand, long time civil
rights activist Barbara Smith is endorsing Sanders because while Warren was getting
positions as a “minority hire” pretending to be Native American, and Hillary
Clinton was a “Goldwater Girl,” Sanders “fought for racial justice. He and I
worked in different local branches of the same organization, the Congress of
Racial Equality (Core), which focused on de facto segregation in the north. Because
there is little understanding of the terrifying conditions of mid-20th century
US apartheid, some people dismiss Sanders’ involvement in the civil rights struggle
as insignificant or think that many white people at the time supported black
liberation and human rights. Far from it. I support Sanders because unlike most
people of his generation he decided as a young person to challenge Jim Crow. I
wonder if other candidates can say the same.”
Smith goes on to say that “Sanders
has devoted most of his life to social movements. He has shaped them and been
shaped by them. He understands that the most substantial and meaningful change
comes from the bottom up, not the top down.”
Today, this country is being “changed” by someone who has only has his
own and fellow wealthy interests in mind. He has been conning those who do not
have wealth by making them believe that white nationalism should make them feel
“great again.” Sanders knows better, and always has. I’m not sure that the
other Democratic candidates do.
No comments:
Post a Comment