Remember when I did those fun post-debate podcast episodes with Lew Rockwell during the 2016 presidential campaign?
This time it’ll be Democratic debates. I haven’t yet had the heart to ask Lew if he’s willing to do it. (He reads this newsletter, though, so we’ll see….)
The New York Times, meanwhile, can’t help itself: when discussing the Democratic candidates its biases couldn’t be more obvious.
Real Dissent: A Libert...
Best Price: $8.48
Buy New $7.93
(as of 03:10 UTC - Details)
I know Tulsi Gabbard has problems, and she’s awful on economics, and so on. I’m obviously not telling you to vote for her. What I am telling you is: there must be a reason the Times prefers the hawkish Kamala Harris over Gabbard, who’s been a tough and consistent opponent of the warfare state.
Michael Tracey (who’s on the left, but really solid on important things) tweeted about this the other day: in a side-to-side, bullet-pointed matchup between Harris and Gabbard in the Times, one side came out squeaky clean while the other…well….
Harris is described as bringing “history-making potential” to the race even though Gabbard is a minority woman.
Under Gabbard, we read that she has “drawn criticism” for meeting with Syria’s Assad — who, the Times helpfully reminds us, “has been accused of using chemical weapons against civilians.” (Thanks for treating us like we’re 7.)
As Tracey puts it, instead of describing Gabbard as having “history-making potential,” the Times “instead chooses to label Tulsi an anti-gay Assad lover. This is how establishment consensus tries to preemptively disqualify candidates.”
Now I’m not saying the Times is a CIA organ, but if it were, how would we tell the difference?
I take this up a bit in today’s (forthcoming) episode of the Tom Woods Show.
If you haven’t subscribed yet (costs nothing, of course), would you take a minute and do so? Today’s is episode 1,328 and I think I produce good-quality stuff every weekday that will make you a better debater and help you navigate the lunacy:
