Letters to the Editor
-
Talk is impossible if it's in bad faith
Joan's point might be valid were it not made in bad faith.
She starts this wrongly stating Brazile suggested "the party might be able to do without the support of white working-class voters and Latinos". Which isn't what she said and Walsh admits this -- later in this post.
So why does the open with something she knows isn't true.
For reference here's Brazile's quote:
A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Even as Walsh belatedly admits her interpretation was wrong, she still argues for it:"Still, she sounded ready to write off working-class whites and Latinos; it wasn't until I read the transcript that I noticed she said "just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics."
No, Joan, she didn't. Not only does "just rely" clearly not mean "do without" but also "expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bath water" clearly doesn't mean "do without".
If this were someone else trying to push a view they just admitted was false, Joan would denounce the arrogant double talk. Why does she make excuses for the same behavior she critiques in others?
After much bloviation and equivocation, Joan says: "What's the answer? I hammered out this whole post, and I don't have one."
I do. Media pundits who can't make a point without being dishonest should get right or stop taking part.