The New York Times actually published this argument (wording it “I Believe Tara Reade. I’m voting for Joe Biden anyway … suck it up and make the utilitarian bargain”) in an op-ed and by all appearances, they agree with it. Stranger yet, a good cross-section of their readers do, as evidenced in the Letters to the Editor and by the lack of much push-back, if any, to the article.
But only two years ago, this same newspaper viciously attacked Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, publishing numerous articles around the argument that there is an ethical obligation to “believe women” which makes Kavanaugh guilty, because he was accused by a woman. From there it followed that Kavanaugh must not be permitted to serve on the Supreme Court.
Now hold on, you might be saying, op-ed writers are not affiliated with the newspaper’s editorial board. This is technically true, but the writer Linda Hirshman has been a steady presence on the liberal circuit for years and this includes the New York Times. They announced her daughter’s wedding in the Style section in 2003 and have published Linda’s op-eds periodically for more than 10 years; longtime NYT columnist David Brooks name-dropped her at the top of his column nearly 15 years ago, starting a public back-and-forth that generated publicity for her, an unknown writer, in the lead-up to her first book release. The Times have since plugged all three of her books, which make the bestseller list now — she’s part of the club, thanks in no small part to David Brooks and the Times, and has had a long relationship with the “paper of record” that continued with this op-ed.
Biden’s new running mate, Kamala Harris, took a similar stance on Kavanaugh to the Times’ and was in fact a ringleader in their and the Democrats’ joint effort to smear him into withdrawing. Sexual assault, Harris said,
is an issue right now that is where the issue of domestic violence was about 30 years ago. … There was a perception about domestic violence: ‘Oh, you know, what happens in the king’s castle is the king’s business. That’s private business. That’s not our business.’ But then we evolved as a society. … I believe this is an inflection moment on the issue of sexual assault.
Not surprisingly, Reade’s accusation that Biden forcefully raped her has become another inflection point for Harris: back to the way things were, in her chronology. Kavanaugh was guilty because a woman accused him, whereas Biden may or may not be–it doesn’t really matter. Should he drop out, as she insisted for Kavanaugh? “He’s going to have to make that decision for himself. I wouldn’t tell him what to do,” Harris said.
Whatever her opinion on Reade’s accusation (other than deciding, hypocritically, that there is no imperative for her to share it), Harris does believe that Biden is a serial molester. Harris’ statement that she believes Biden’s accusers came less than a week after Reade accused him of raping her, but the Hill assures us she meant every accuser but Reade. Conveniently perhaps for them, but not for me, the interview transcript is not publicly available. But whether or not Harris meant to include Reade, she doesn’t anymore.
And if this didn’t look bad enough, Senator Harris is Tara Reade’s representative.
Katha Pollitt wrote an article for The Nation just like the Times’, and they too published it: “I would vote for Joe Biden even if I believed Reade’s account… I would vote for Joe Biden if he boiled babies and ate them.” What if he boiled YOUR baby and ate it, Katha Pollitt? Would you vote for him then?
The Atlantic took a more honest step back before launching into the same: “Condemning Biden carries a clear cost for these groups. They believe that four more years of Trump would be immensely damaging for their policy agendas and for women in general,” leading in to another supposed feminist explaining why she defends Biden against Reade and you should too, “for women in general.” All three of these outlets pushed for Kavanaugh’s removal and yet today, all three have been publishing reasons it’s different with Biden. Reade is lying, or they believe her but their political vision for the country (“beating Trump”) is more important. So Biden may be a rapist, and that’s ok now—sometimes that’s what women need, right New York Times?
This discrepancy needless to say is trending across the liberal media, who only two years ago would’ve called *you* a rapist if you wanted Kavanaugh’s accusations corroborated. Bloodthirsty, determined and certain of their moral high ground, the Left chanted “We Believe Her” (referring to his accuser Christine Blasey Ford, who says he tried to rape her 37 years ago) in unison, incessantly, for months. The year before, similar decades-old accusations were lobbed against Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore. If these people are genuinely concerned about the victims, then shouldn’t they apply this standard to both sides of the political aisle? Surely they’d agree that candidates for president should be held to it.
Don’t ask Joe Biden—he doesn’t always know he’s running for president. But if he wins, “[his] first priority as president will be defeating Donald Trump.” He’s forgotten what state he was in, on camera, in 3 different states in this campaign alone. Do reporters hold Biden accountable for these lapses or surreptitiously ignore them? He’s persistently forgotten what day of the week it is, what year it is and even which half-century he’s in, telling parents to “make sure you have the record player on at night” for their kids. He’s forgotten what college he went to, claiming falsely he attended historically-black Delaware State when he attended the University of Delaware.
He’s forgotten that Harris herself was on the stage with him at a Democratic debate, saying in front of her that he was endorsed by the only African-American woman in the Senate (not referring to Harris). Funnily enough, or “horrifyingly,” in the president’s words, Biden’s forgotten the Declaration of Independence on stage in the midst of reciting it: “All men and women are created by the … you know … you know the thing.” And every time he does this, he gets a pass.
In striking similarity, Ford doesn’t know what city she says she was almost raped in, what year it was, whose house it happened in or who was there with her. Her only records are her therapist’s notes which were taken 30 years later and conflict with the year she gave the Washington Post as an estimation (compared to Kavanaugh’s daily calendar notes which are meticulous and taken in his own hand, in real time on the dates in question). None of the three witnesses Ford named can remember the party and one of them says “I don’t have any confidence in the story,” and can’t recall ever having met Kavanaugh. This doesn’t count Ford’s husband, who remembers her telling him 30 years afterward.
As we head into perhaps the most important presidential election of our time, the liberal media with their silence are telling us that sexual assault doesn’t matter anymore, nor does “believing women” require you to care what happened to them–if you’re a Democrat running for office, that is. The shameless manipulations by these candidates accordingly don’t matter either, nor the obvious low opinion they hold of their constituents as they fly into one faux outrage after another, and then forget it.
These indeed are candidates who don’t believe in anything.
Part 1 of 2
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.