By Dave Andrusko
Before we address the rapidly mounting hysteria among media sympathizers over the current crop of pro-abortion Democrats running for President, here’s some background about tonight’s debate in Atlanta, Georgia.
*There are ten who qualified to be on stage for tonight’s two-hour debate starting at 9:00pm, EST. To repeat, all are pro-abortion:
- Former Vice President Joe Biden
- Sen. Cory Booker
- Mayor Pete Buttigieg
- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard
- Sen. Kamala Harris
- Sen. Amy Klobuchar
- Sen. Bernie Sanders
- Billionaire Tom Steyer,
- Sen. Elizabeth Warren
- Andrew Yang, founder of Venture for America
*To quote NPR, “Four women will be running the show: Rachel Maddow of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent; Kristen Welker, NBC News White House correspondent; and Ashley Parker, a Post White House reporter.” With this particular set of women, a question, or questions, about abortion, is highly likely to come up. The felt need by the 10 Democrats to outdo one another in their radical position on “reproductive rights” could spark some real candor.
So, why are the elites of the Media Elite so panicky? Not because all ten (and others who did not qualify and/or just got in) are not hard-core pro-abortionists. That’s where this elite is at. It’s what we’ve talked about for months: This collection is amazingly weak and far, far, far to the Left of the “median America” (as one publication describes the average voter), and even, in some cases, is more liberal than its liberal base.
That’s how New York Times columnist David Leonhardt begins his piece “Dear Rachel Maddow, Andrea Mitchell, Ashley Parker and Kristen Welker: Please don’t start with Medicare.” Leonhardt’s rationale is that the topic has eaten up too much time in prior debates. MSNBC contributor Krystal Ball hammers Sen. Warren for back peddling on the “implementation” of “Medicaid for All.”
But the truth is, as Tom Edsall of the New York Times explained, while “Under pressure, Elizabeth Warren has retreated from the idea of immediate implementation of Medicare for All,” Warren “remains committed to the progressive core of her candidacy.” That progressive core, Edsall writes, possibly could elect her President but win or lose, her candidacy could easily be a disaster for other Democrats. He writes
“Strategically, if Warren wins the Democratic nomination, the election would become not only a referendum on Trump — favorable terrain for Democrats — but also a referendum on Warren’s program, a far less certain proposition.
“A presidential campaign based on the set of proposals Warren has put forward faces not only an assault from the right, but a mixed reception from the extensive network of Democratic policy mavens, including a number of economists.”
I have only jumped in and out in watching prior debates. This one I will watch beginning to end.