THE NEW YORK TIMES ED BOARD DROPS ITS OWN LOAD OF FECES ON THE NO KINGS CROWDS
And there's the problem with the editorial. It argues that voters prefer moderates to extremists, but it ignores the fact that Republican extremists seem to do just fine. It begins with an image of 16 candidates ... Democrats who won in places that backed Trump and Republicans who won in places that backed Harris. It treats them as shining examples for both parties. But there's one problem: Only 3 of the 16 are from the GOP. And yet the GOP controls both houses of Congress. So how necessary...
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I'm sure you know how Donald Trump responded to the No Kings rallies: by posting an AI video depicting him as a crown-wearing fighter pilot dropping feces on protesters.
The editorial board of The New York Times would never be quite so gauche. Its response to the No Kings rallies, posted this morning, is an editorial titled "America Still Has a Political Center, and It’s the Key to Winning."
There's nothing in this editorial that directly references Saturday's protests, but I'm certain that the ed board made a calculated decision to publish the editorial today. I don't agree with many of you that the Times is Trumpist -- I believe the Times 's ideal political candidate is moderately liberal on social issues (pro-choice but no trans athletes, please) and right-centrist economically. The Times ed board represents urbane but greedy plutocrats whose ideal president would be Mike Bloomberg, Joe Manchin, or Larry Hogan.
Or, apparently, candidate Donald Trump, at least in the ed board's telling:
Is that the guy who won the last presidential election? I seem to recall him being much less moderate -- and, in fact, some observers noticed his immoderation during the 2024 campaign. This is from a July 2024 editorial called "Donald Trump Is Unfit to Lead":
That piece appeared on ... the editorial page of The New York Times . In other words, the same editorial board that saw Trump as a danger to America during his 2024 campaign now recalls him as a centrist on the stump.
In the new editorial , it's acknowledged that, gosh, Trump really isn't very moderate:
Well, duh. Millions of us could see that last year. The Times ed board could see that last year. I question the extent to which voters really thought he was a fine, even-tempered, middle-of-the-road guy. And yet nearly half of them voted for him anyway.
And there's the problem with the editorial. It argues that voters prefer moderates to extremists, but it ignores the fact that Republican extremists seem to do just fine. It begins with an image of
It treats them as shining examples for both parties. But there's one problem: Only 3 of the 16 are from the GOP. And yet the GOP controls both houses of Congress. So how necessary is moderation to electoral success, really? Apparently it isn't -- if you're a Republican.
We're told:
But on the Republican side, there are quite a few states that are purple or near-purple but have elected very right-wing senators: Wisconsin (Ron Johnson), Texas (Ted Cruz), Ohio (Bennie Moreno and, before him, J.D. Vance).
The editorial says that both parties should recognize the appeal of centrism, but can't point to any electoral consequences the Republicans have faced for failing to be centrist. The editorial tells us that
But if both parties are ignoring the appeal of centrism, why are only the Democrats losing voters?
You know my answer. Democrats don't try hard enough to paint the entire GOP as radical. Democrats don't remind voters that they're the party that wants a higher minimum wage, legal abortion, higher taxes on the obscenely rich, universal background checks, and an assault weapons ban, and the Republican Party unalterably opposes all of these things. Democrats avoid proudly taking any position at all on most issues -- mustn't upset the Baileys ! -- preferring instead to mutter generalities about healthcare. Democrats praise bipartisanship and attack fellow Democrats as extreme, suggesting that they agree with Republicans that their own party is badly falwed and the GOP is the better party.
But Establishment Democrats' lack of basic political skills is of no interest to the ed board, which is determined to send the message "Democrats should be neoliberal on economics and throw trans athletes under the bus."
(We're told that voters "think that corporations and the wealthy have too much power," but also that "most voters prefer capitalism to socialism and worry that the government is too big" -- just what Bill Ackman wants to hear. We're also told that "Most support job protections for trans people and believe that trans girls should not play girls’ sports" -- and yet Democrat Andy Beshear, who vetoed a bill banning trans athletes from competing in school sports, won reelection as governor of Kentucky a year after that veto.)
The ed board does some funny things with numbers to arrive at its conclusions. We're told:
We're not told that Barnes was trying to beat an incumbent (Ron Johnson) and lost that race by only one point , while Baldwin and Evers were incumbents and won by less than a point and by three and a half points , respectively. (We're also not told that Barnes was a Black candidate in a very white state.)
The editorial also tells us this about Bernie Sanders:
Do you know what Kamala Harris's victory margin was in Vermont last year? It was 63.83% to 32.32% . Do you what Sanders's victory margin was? It was 63.16% to 32.07% . It's practically the same margin.
It's true that in his only other Senate race that coincided with a presidential election, Sanders outpolled the presidential candidate. But that was 2012. Sanders got 71% of the vote and Barack Obama got 66.57% . But Obama's opponent was Mitt Romney, whom many Vermonters undoubtedly recalled as the former moderate governor of neighboring Massachusetts. (Remember, Vermont currently has a moderate Republican governor .)
This is a flawed editorial that scolds Democrats and lets Republicans off the hook. It was published now because the Democratic Establishment doesn't want all those No Kings protesters to get crazy notions in their heads about progressivism. What if those radicals win? Billionaires might not be able to afford that fifth yacht.
The Times ed board thinks Trump is dangerous, but so is progressivism. That's why it dropped this load of feces on the post-No Kings Democratic Party today.
Trump posts AI video showing him literally dumping shit on America
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar ( @atrupar.com ) October 18, 2025 at 10:36 PM
The editorial board of The New York Times would never be quite so gauche. Its response to the No Kings rallies, posted this morning, is an editorial titled "America Still Has a Political Center, and It’s the Key to Winning."
There's nothing in this editorial that directly references Saturday's protests, but I'm certain that the ed board made a calculated decision to publish the editorial today. I don't agree with many of you that the Times is Trumpist -- I believe the Times 's ideal political candidate is moderately liberal on social issues (pro-choice but no trans athletes, please) and right-centrist economically. The Times ed board represents urbane but greedy plutocrats whose ideal president would be Mike Bloomberg, Joe Manchin, or Larry Hogan.
Or, apparently, candidate Donald Trump, at least in the ed board's telling:
Extreme as he is in many ways, he moved the Republican Party toward the center on several key issues. He won the party’s nomination and the general election in 2016 partly by rejecting unpopular conservative positions on Social Security, Medicare and global trade. Last year he broke with prominent Republicans and said he would veto a national abortion ban. He also focused his 2024 campaign on areas in which the Democratic Party had moved left over the previous decade and was out of step with public opinion, such as immigration, transgender issues and parts of education policy. Voters noticed. Polls in 2024 showed that most voters considered their policy views to be closer to Mr. Trump’s than to Kamala Harris’s.
Is that the guy who won the last presidential election? I seem to recall him being much less moderate -- and, in fact, some observers noticed his immoderation during the 2024 campaign. This is from a July 2024 editorial called "Donald Trump Is Unfit to Lead":
Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.
... his words and promises ... have little to do with unity and healing and a lot to do with making the divisions and anger in our society wider and more intense than they already are.
That piece appeared on ... the editorial page of The New York Times . In other words, the same editorial board that saw Trump as a danger to America during his 2024 campaign now recalls him as a centrist on the stump.
In the new editorial , it's acknowledged that, gosh, Trump really isn't very moderate:
Despite Mr. Trump’s rhetorical nods to the center, he is governing as a radical who rejects longstanding governing constraints and uses the power of the presidency to enrich his family, protect his allies and punish people he dislikes. He threatens American democracy , and congressional Republicans have been complicit.
Well, duh. Millions of us could see that last year. The Times ed board could see that last year. I question the extent to which voters really thought he was a fine, even-tempered, middle-of-the-road guy. And yet nearly half of them voted for him anyway.
And there's the problem with the editorial. It argues that voters prefer moderates to extremists, but it ignores the fact that Republican extremists seem to do just fine. It begins with an image of
16 candidates ... Democrats who won in places that backed Trump and Republicans who won in places that backed Harris.
It treats them as shining examples for both parties. But there's one problem: Only 3 of the 16 are from the GOP. And yet the GOP controls both houses of Congress. So how necessary is moderation to electoral success, really? Apparently it isn't -- if you're a Republican.
We're told:
Candidates closer to the political center, from both parties, continue to fare better in most elections than those farther to the right or left....
On the Democratic side, there are no progressives in the mold of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders who represent a swing district or state. Instead, the Democrats who win tough races work hard to signal to voters that they are less progressive than their party.
But on the Republican side, there are quite a few states that are purple or near-purple but have elected very right-wing senators: Wisconsin (Ron Johnson), Texas (Ted Cruz), Ohio (Bennie Moreno and, before him, J.D. Vance).
The editorial says that both parties should recognize the appeal of centrism, but can't point to any electoral consequences the Republicans have faced for failing to be centrist. The editorial tells us that
many Americans see the Democratic Party as too liberal , too judgmental and too focused on cultural issues to be credible, and voters are moving away from it. “Of the 30 states that track voter registration by political party, Democrats lost ground to Republicans in every single one between the 2020 and 2024 elections — and often by a lot,” The Times reported this summer .
But if both parties are ignoring the appeal of centrism, why are only the Democrats losing voters?
You know my answer. Democrats don't try hard enough to paint the entire GOP as radical. Democrats don't remind voters that they're the party that wants a higher minimum wage, legal abortion, higher taxes on the obscenely rich, universal background checks, and an assault weapons ban, and the Republican Party unalterably opposes all of these things. Democrats avoid proudly taking any position at all on most issues -- mustn't upset the Baileys ! -- preferring instead to mutter generalities about healthcare. Democrats praise bipartisanship and attack fellow Democrats as extreme, suggesting that they agree with Republicans that their own party is badly falwed and the GOP is the better party.
But Establishment Democrats' lack of basic political skills is of no interest to the ed board, which is determined to send the message "Democrats should be neoliberal on economics and throw trans athletes under the bus."
(We're told that voters "think that corporations and the wealthy have too much power," but also that "most voters prefer capitalism to socialism and worry that the government is too big" -- just what Bill Ackman wants to hear. We're also told that "Most support job protections for trans people and believe that trans girls should not play girls’ sports" -- and yet Democrat Andy Beshear, who vetoed a bill banning trans athletes from competing in school sports, won reelection as governor of Kentucky a year after that veto.)
The ed board does some funny things with numbers to arrive at its conclusions. We're told:
... in Wisconsin, Mandela Barnes, a progressive Democrat with a history of supporting cuts to immigration enforcement and police funding, lost his 2022 Senate race, while Ms. Baldwin and Gov. Tony Evers have won by running to the middle .
We're not told that Barnes was trying to beat an incumbent (Ron Johnson) and lost that race by only one point , while Baldwin and Evers were incumbents and won by less than a point and by three and a half points , respectively. (We're also not told that Barnes was a Black candidate in a very white state.)
The editorial also tells us this about Bernie Sanders:
Mr. Sanders’s arc is instructive. Earlier in his career — when he took just as feisty a stance on the economy but spoke more about his concerns about immigration and support of hunting — he received more votes than the Democratic candidates at the top of the ticket. He no longer does. His story is a microcosm.
Do you know what Kamala Harris's victory margin was in Vermont last year? It was 63.83% to 32.32% . Do you what Sanders's victory margin was? It was 63.16% to 32.07% . It's practically the same margin.
It's true that in his only other Senate race that coincided with a presidential election, Sanders outpolled the presidential candidate. But that was 2012. Sanders got 71% of the vote and Barack Obama got 66.57% . But Obama's opponent was Mitt Romney, whom many Vermonters undoubtedly recalled as the former moderate governor of neighboring Massachusetts. (Remember, Vermont currently has a moderate Republican governor .)
This is a flawed editorial that scolds Democrats and lets Republicans off the hook. It was published now because the Democratic Establishment doesn't want all those No Kings protesters to get crazy notions in their heads about progressivism. What if those radicals win? Billionaires might not be able to afford that fifth yacht.
The Times ed board thinks Trump is dangerous, but so is progressivism. That's why it dropped this load of feces on the post-No Kings Democratic Party today.
Tags
Who is online
151 visitors
Bothsidesism will not rid the country of Trump or Trumpism. In fact it emboldens them.
It’s Amazing. Democrats managed to lose two elections to the most unpopular candidate ever because he championed common sense, moderate policies and progressives think doubling down on extremism is the way best way forward. Truly the stupid party.
When you call for Trump to resign I will think about taking you seriously.
I won't even then
Forget the Democrats, what does it say about our country that millions of people voted for a piece of human shit, two or three times?
Support for Trump has always been about white grievance and Christian nationalism. Maybe 10% of voters voted for Trump even though they themselves dont approve of white grievance or Christian nationalism. It is true that if the Democrats had won those folks over completely they would have won in 2024. But what about the 35 or 40% who would support Trump if he pissed in their faces? They are the problem and it is getting worse by the day.
No, it's really just about a rejection of Democratic extremism on pretty much every topic. A moderate Democrat with Bill Clinton's 90s era policies (in other words, Trump without all the personal issues) and approach would have won a Nixon or Reagan like landslide against Trump.
Trump won because he was, and remains, politically moderate running against extremists. It's his personal issues that kept him winning 60% plus of the vote against a radical like Harris.
Donald Trumps entire existence as a politician is based on racism. This is undeniable and yet people like you keep ignoring the fact. Trump wanted to run for president in 2012 , as a Republican, but realized he had no political base. He decided to appeal to white grievance by going into birther mode. And it worked, he was ahead in some polls until Obama released his long form birth certificate and Trump was humiliated. He came back in the next election with the same themes and became the right wings god.
Obama's birth certificate has been irrelevant for more than a decade. It has nothing to do with why Trump won twice and that you and other progressives can only see through the world that lens explains why Trump keeps beating you.
If democrats want to win they have to stop being on the 20 side of so many 80/20 issues that voters actually care about and base their vote upon.
Through 90% of his first presidential campaign Trump was publicly a birther. Its seriously laughable to say his appeal was not to racism .
Claiming Trump's victory in 2016 was in any way related to his claims that Obama was born in Kenya, demonstrates an almost willful blindness about what that election was about. No one cared. No one.
That doesn't even get into your egregious misuse of the word "racism" to characterize his claim Obama was born in Kenya. Obama's own book publisher claimed he was born in Kenya (where'd he get that nugget?) Foreign birth is an issue when it comes to the Presidency. It was brought up with Cruz, McCain and others. It's not racist to make a claim that Obama himself used to his advantage when it was convenient.
The publisher explicitly said that was a mistake .
A 1991 promotional booklet from Obama's literary agency mistakenly stated he was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." The agency later clarified this was a fact-checking error by an assistant and not based on any statement from Obama himself.
A spoof video from 2010, resurfaced in 2023, was altered to make it appear Obama admitted being born in Kenya. The original footage from 2009 shows him speaking to students in Turkey and does not include such a claim.
Donald Trump and others have cited statements allegedly made by Obama’s grandmother or half-brother suggesting he was born in Kenya. These claims have been widely debunked and are part of the long-running “birther” conspiracy theory.
Obama’s own writings and official documents consistently state he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961. His birth certificate was released publicly in both short-form (2008) and long-form (2011) formats to address these rumors.
The publisher explicitly said that was a mistake .
Yes, years later after promoting Obama as a native of Kenya for more than a decade. Clinton and then Trump didn't make up the claims Obama was born in Kenya.
Who told the publisher this? Do you think the publisher just made it up out of whole cloth? Regardless, Obama's introduction to the public in 1991 was as a native of Kenya. It made a better story. No wonder he didn't correct it until he had to.
I am not interested in the debunked theories of conspiracy nuts.
If you want to delve into Clinton or Trumps involvement in birtherism I will be happy to do it.
You brought it up. You are the only person in America who ever brings it up. It's beyond old news.
No one votes for Trump because of Obama's birth certificate. He did not win two elections by claiming Obama was born in Kenya. That you think Obama's birth certificate is relevant in 2025 speaks to your lack of understanding why Democrats are struggling so badly.
Trump's existence as a politician is based on racism. Do you think he doesnt know that ?
If that was true, you could support it with incontrovertible evidence, and you can't
"The editorial board of The New York Times would never be quite so gauche. Its response to the No Kings rallies, posted this morning, is an editorial titled "America Still Has a Political Center, and It’s the Key to Winning. "
That is the inconvenient truth for the democrats, the electorate has rejected the shit they try to sell, and that movement is growing
"But if both parties are ignoring the appeal of centrism, why are only the Democrats losing voters? "
The answer is plainly clear to those who are not blindly partisan
"The publisher explicitly said that was a mistake"
It was from a bio that Obama wrote for himself in 1991 and confirmed by Snopes, then later denied.
I know the truth doesnt matter to conspiracy nuts, but...
copilot
Dr. Chiyome Fukino confirmed President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii twice.
Here's the breakdown of her confirmations:
🗓️ First confirmation: October 31, 2008 As Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, Dr. Fukino issued a public statement affirming that she had personally seen the original vital records verifying that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born U.S. citizen.
🗓️ Second confirmation: July 27, 2009 She reiterated her earlier statement, again confirming she had reviewed the original birth certificate and that Obama was born in Hawaii. She emphasized that she had “nothing further to add” beyond her original statement.
Additionally, in a 2011 interview, Dr. Fukino expressed frustration with ongoing conspiracy theories and reaffirmed that the birth certificate was real, calling the claims “ludicrous”. She also stated in a CNN interview that she had examined the original birth certificate twice.
So while she publicly confirmed it twice in official statements, she later reinforced those confirmations in interviews and media appearances. Let me know if you'd like to explore how these confirmations impacted the broader public discourse or legal interpretati
This makes no logical sense. EDIT: There aren't a lot of left wing populists in positions of power to flip the script on right wing populists. You guys need us moderates to win.
As I told my wife this weekend, the Dems should have had winnable candidates rallying over the weekend proposing solutions instead of wasting their time bitching about Trump. Give us something to vote for, not just something to vote against.
Trumps fitness for office is a separate issue from how the Democrats should try and appeal to voters.
If he stays in office for three and a quarter more years things will be so bad they might not be worth saving.
No one was forced to put him office because they dont like Dems policies.
It is a thing, but not the only thing.
"IF..." doesn't mean a whole lot. "IF..." is a possibility and running around with your head on fire screaming about possibilities instead of focusing on the realities is wasted time.
You're forgetting that Dems lost votes in swing states for their response to Israel. The handling of this was short sighted and it cost us all.
The Dems need to find a candidate with broad appeal and get them out in front of the media yesterday. I don't think Newsome can be that guy, but he's the only one in the news consistently.
No one has been "forced" to vote for Trump because of the Democrats policy positions. Why dont we ever hear about all those people who were "forced" to vote for Clinton , Biden, or Harris because the opponent was completely unfit for office?
You aren't making any sense.
All I'm saying is if Dems want to win, they need a better choice than "I'm not Trump". Harris wasn't a good choice. Newsome is a little better, but has his own baggage. Who else is there?
I am making perfect sense. You are justifying voting for the most unfit presidential candidate in American history because of what you say are flaws in his opponents. Kamala Harris was not more unfit than Trump. Not even in the same solar system in terms of unfitness.
We are now seeing exactly what happens when you put the most unfit person ever into office - complete chaos in politics and the government.
I am absolutely not doing that. I'm saying do better.
Evidence of what happens when you don't do better.
Yep, so many on the left can't see or accept that simple truth;
So Presidential? Reagan would have done this? Obama was trashed over a tan suit.
Trump lied about retaining the White House as a historical building while adding his golden ballroom. However today they just took a construction crew to the historical East Wing demolishing it.
So Republicans want to preserve history by saving Confederate monuments but are fine tearing down the East Wing of the White House?
Nothing is presidential about Trump, nothing. He and Bannon were bent on literally "tearing it all down" and that is what we are getting at great expense to the American taxpayers.
A torn down White House, an internet troll Presidency, destroying jobs, destroying necessary government, just like a toddler having a tantrum.
Yes, but to paraphrase a couple righties on here, "why do you care"?
One Congressman mocked him one time and democrats have obsessed over it for 10 plus years.
That's how coddled Obama was.