NYT, Democrat Insiders Desperate for a New Candidate To Challenge Trump as Biden Flounders
For Democrats, even the media’s chief cheerleader is getting nervous.
The New York Times has never been bashful about its liberal leanings, and its loathing of President Donald Trump is a theme that’s run through pretty much every word it’s published for years.
So if the Gray Lady is sounding antsy these days about the current crop of Democratic candidates, liberals might start listening.
And a Times article on Tuesday sounds antsy, all right.
The headline makes the concern clear: “Anxious Democratic Establishment Asks, ‘Is There Anybody Else?'”
After four Democratic debates, after the initial field has been culled to 16, with only 12 qualifying for the most recent debate, and only three months before real-life voters actual make the first choices in Iowa, influential party members are still looking for a candidate they can have confidence in, The Times reported.
“Since the last debate, just anecdotally, I’ve had five or six people ask me: ‘Is there anybody else?'” Leah Daughtry, a Democratic insider who chaired the party’s national convention committee in 2008 and 2016, told The Times.
Democrats have some good reasons to be uneasy.
Their leading candidate is still former Vice President Joe Biden, a guy long known to the American public for putting his foot in his mouth, and his hands where they don’t belong.
Now, Americans are getting a distinctly dirtier view of Biden, as revelations come out about the sweetheart deals his son Hunter Biden got in Ukraine and China during Biden’s time in Air Force 2.
Biden’s top challenger is Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator with a shrill voice, flaky ideas and a “plan” for everything except how to pay for her plans.
Then comes Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed socialist whose physical health is as shaky as his lunatic ideology.
After that comes a clown car that includes an openly gay mayor married who’s claimed the Bible can justify abortion; a gun-grabbing and hypocritical prosecutor-turned-California senator; and a pretentious former congressman who fantasizes about being able to order cops to confiscate Americans’ constitutionally protected firearms.
And those — plus 10-odd more even less likely characters — are Democrats’ choices to take on Trump? A president who has so far survived every political attack on Capitol Hill and every smear cooked up by the media and still delivered an economy so strong that the unemployment rate is at a 50-year low?
“There’s more anxiety than ever,” Connie Schultz, a journalist and the wife of Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, told The Times. “We’re both getting the calls. I’ve been surprised by some who’ve called me.”
It’s worth noting that Brown has been one of the Democrats being talked about for a late entry into the campaign, according to The Times, so his wife’s perspective might be a little skewed.
But The Times article — based on interviews about a Democratic dinner in Manhattan last week — went on to list of a number of big-name Democrats floated as possibly joining the race: Hillary Clinton, of course; former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg; former Attorney General Eric Holder; and even former Secretary of State and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry. (Now, that’s desperation.)
One diner apparently mentioned former first lady Michelle Obama as a possibility, too, but that didn’t seem to get much traction. Maybe she’s too busy in Hollywood.
To be fair, The Times piece does note that the party has been unsure of itself in past campaigns before uniting around a common standard-bearer, but there’s still an air of unease about the whole thing.
The New York Times is far and away the Democratic Party’s biggest cheerleader in American journalism — and everyone in Democratic politics knows it.
When Democratic insiders are voicing their opinions about the weakness of the Democratic field to The Times, it’s a good bet that the field is as weak — or weaker — than it looks on the outside.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.