So NY Times reporter Maggie Haberman saw news stories about Trump’s pardon of criminal human rights violator and former Arizona sheriff Don Arpaio, then some weird biochemistry happened in her brain, and she tweeted this:
Whether you’re a Sanders fan, opponent, or just meh on the guy, forget that this was about Sanders for a moment. Haberman makes no sense, but it’s even beyond ordinary stupid. As David Weigel notes, Jane Sanders didn’t go to his ‘Tent City’ to endorse it, but to shed light on it. When Human Rights Violator Arpaio heard about this, he rushed to the ‘jail’, and a non-violent confrontation ensued. In other words, Jane Sanders literally spoke truth to power and bore witness against Arpaio’s policies, yet Haberman insinuates that Sanders supported Arpaio.
If you want to claim that Sanders’ visit was a cynical attempt to shore up support from Latinos, fine. Given Sen. Sanders long-time support for Latino migrant workers, that’s a stretch, but political motives are never entirely pure. But there’s no way even a rather dim person could conclude her visit indicates support for Arpaio. At best, she’s trolling; at worst, there is something very wrong with a NY Times political reporter whose work appears on the front page. And if you think this won’t affect other Democratic candidates, initiatives and the like, you’re sadly mistaken.
I have a pretty good intuitive understanding of how the Republican right works, how they reach the conclusions they do. But political reporters in the vein of Haberman baffle me. They can’t be stupid, yet their ideological motivations, such as they are, are completely alien to me. I don’t mind bias, as long as I can figure out the bias. Something is going on with Haberman, I just can’t figure out what exactly (or at all).