General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKen Klippenstein: WaPo Ed Board endorses everyone except Gabbard, Hegseth, RFK Jr. and Vought
@kenklippenstein.bsky.social
Washington Post editorial board endorses every Trump nominee for confirmation except Gabbard, Hegseth, RFK Jr. and Vought
January 13, 2025 at 10:10 AM
I wonder how Bezos' buddy in Mar-a-Lago will like this?
https://bsky.app/profile/kenklippenstein.bsky.social/post/3lfmzgxx2fk22
newdeal2
(1,376 posts)krawhitham
(4,926 posts)FSogol
(47,069 posts)Prairie Gates
(3,796 posts)CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION.
W_HAMILTON
(8,634 posts)Ocelot II
(122,381 posts)Last edited Mon Jan 13, 2025, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)
they still deemed them acceptable. Burgum was acceptable for Interior because he was the governor of ND and started a software company. Huh? Lutnik is OK for Commerce because "it's a natural fit for a job traditionally held by a presidential friend." Pam Bondi is fine for AG because she's "serious." Scott Turner gets the OK for HUD because although "the former motivational speaker has never run a big organization ... that is not disqualifying." Hint to WaPo: HUD is a "Black job" because it has the word "urban" in it; qualifications are irrelevant (see also Ben Carson). Noem qualifies for DHS because she's been a governor and served in Congress. Alrighty, then. Oil and gas exec Wright qualifies for Energy because he acknowledges that climate change is real. Hello, shouldn't that be a minimum requirement for any Cabinet position, like admitting that gravity is real? Raving lunatic Collins' "heart is in the right place." Reality TV star Duffy "will need to study" for Transportation but he's qualified.
I'm still glad I canceled my subscription, and now I think they should give me my money back from when I did subscribe.
spanone
(137,932 posts)I DID cancel my subscription and I'm glad I did.
Ocelot II
(122,381 posts)Technically I guess these aren't endorsement because this collection of stooges, sycophants and bottom-feeders aren't running for elected office, but WaPo singled out the low-hanging fruit that even some GOPers would find unacceptable - and then struggled to find reasons why the rest of them are sort of OK. Most of those reasons are downright risible.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)After the debacle with Kamala, I thought Bezos told us with a straight face that he didn't believe his paper should do any more endorsements?
bluesbassman
(19,997 posts)and the rest are hardly ringing endorsements. In fact Im fairly certain the entire board had to go see chiropractors the next day to get their backs untangled from the pretzels they twisted themselves into to make these lickspittles and toadies seem qualified. But cmon Jeff, lets not be such a blatant hypocrite ok? What am I saying? Youre too rich to have any shame.
eppur_se_muova
(37,973 posts)Because that seem to be a deal-breaker for BePo.