The Dishonest, Disingenuous, Hypocritical Washington Post Editorial on Sanders.

One of these days news organizations are going to wake up to the fact that all they have to sell is their credibility. And when they damage it or destroy it through their own dishonesty, malfeasance, hypocrisy, and even incompetence, they take one more step in  the news media making the First Amendment irrelevant during political campaigns, elections, policy and politics in general.

The Washington Post in one of the most self serving, defensive,biased and dishonest editorials since Ben Bradlee retired and with him the Post's integrity, attacked Bernie Sanders in an editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton by accusing Sanders of not being a "a brave truth teller". And in support of a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who had been caught blatantly lying to the public for two years about her private, unauthorized, personal email server she used while Secretary of State and lying about her reasons for using it.

Pretty funny.

The Washington Post has proved itself to be dishonest and without credibility and not to be taken seriously as a news organization but  are instead  political sycophants willing to lie and distort for political reasons like something out of the old Soviet Pravda or a banana republic news organization shilling for an Eva Peron or Imelda Marcos by lying about the political opposition. To put it bluntly, they like many mainstream news organizations who put an agenda before the truth, they have proved they can't be trusted.

There is no instance where Sanders has not told the truth about anything . And if Bernie Sanders was " not a brave truth teller" where are all the articles in the Washington Post that could have been written for months about Sanders and any of his proposals that took Sanders to task for not telling the truth?

There aren't any. So two days before the Iowa caucuses where Sanders and Clinton are in a statistical tie, after Sanders closed a 60 point Clinton lead which existed about 4 months ago, decides now Sanders is not a truth teller about his polices.

Is it because his policies threaten Clinton and Clinton represents a corporate America epitomized by Wall Street where greed brought down the economy and top executives have the biggest disparity in wages with their employees in American history?

Is it because his policies are much more popular than Clinton's so instead of attacking the polices in terms of good or bad, attack them and Sanders on the basis of honesty or whether they can be enacted?

If, like Clinton, you are out there promoting the failed and dishonest presidency of Obama and promising to continue or "build" on those failed policies in return for political favors while sycophants try selling the snake oil of how successful they've been when most Democratic voters know better, then you attack Sanders, not for his policies but on his honesty which is a backwards way of admitting his polices are better than Clinton's so attack them on the basis that they will never happen.

If there was any truth to what the dishonest Post editorial board was saying about Sanders and his not being a "truth teller" about his policies,  then why haven't they fired every political reporter and editor at the Post covering Sanders who missed it for months? 

So now two days before the Iowa caucuses which show Sanders in a statistical tie with Clinton and destroying her in New Hampshire, the editorial board decided Sanders isnt a "truth teller" about his policies.

Is their endorsement of Clinton because she can be relied on not to rattle the status quo? Obviously.  Is it a coincidence that the same corporate entity that owns the New York Times also owns the Washington Post and that both endorsed Clinton? 

And when it comes to simple truth telling Obama has probably told more flat out lies and made more intentional misrepresentations of the truth than any president or presidential candidate in American history. It could literally fill a book. And the Post has chosen to ignore all of it, from Obama's lies about Obamacare in which he has misrepresented  and distorted to this day the number of uninsured who bought plans covering up the massive failure Obamacare really is by making claims of success that are completely false which Clinton and her surrogates keep repeating, his lie after selling out the  healthcare public option to the corporate interests of the health insurance industry when he had the votes to pass it when he said " I never campaigned for the public option", his continued misrepresentation of the auto bailout as having anything to do with saving GM when it didn't and this is just the smallest fraction of  a lack of truth telling from the White House and Obama's entire political career. And not a word about "truth telling" from the Washington Post editorial board.

Also not a word about Clinton lying about Sanders and distorting his record on guns and being pro choice when Sanders has been on the record of fighting for and maintaining and protecting a woman's right of choice for all his 25 years in congress. But the Washington Post editorial board ignores that too.

How truly dishonest is the Washington Post Editorial Board?  On January 26 they ran a story titled:

"Read His Lips: Bernie Sanders is going to raise your taxes".

This is the candidate the Post editorial said is " not a brave truth teller". So they don't even read their own newspaper. A good reason no one else should either. 

This is all the proof anyone needs that the Washington Post editorial isnt an editorial at all but a political smear by a newspaper. The fact that it is the product of "the editorial board" and not an individual is further proof that it is more a conspiratorial than an editorial.

It is also an insult to the intelligence of not just Sanders supporters but everyone. When was the last time anyone heard a politician running for office tell people he was going to raise taxes? Never. It's unheard of. Which makes Sanders more courageous and more honest than any politician who ever ran for office. Exactly what the country needs running things and is every bit the brave truth teller the dishonest Washington Post tries to say he isn't. It proves that the editorial board collectively is either dishonest to their core don't read their own newspaper or both. Or is instituting a new editorial policy - " are you going to believe what we tell you or your own lying eyes"?

Sanders has been on the record repeatedly that he would raise taxes to pay for universal healthcare for everyone -- a Medicare for all program --  which means people would no longer have their paychecks docked for health insurance or have to pay all of  it themselves meaning thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars goes back into people's pockets, money saved for each person or family especially when medical care is needed, not just a savings in insurance premiums. That in return for a modest tax increase.

So the Post editorial saying Sanders  "wasn't a brave truth teller" when only 4 days before the Post ran a story on  Sanders saying he would raise taxes shows how thoroughly dishonest and incompetent the Post editors really are. And that their agenda is dishonest agenda.

It's no surprise that the Clinton campaign has printed up hundreds of copies of the dishonest Post editorial and is handing them out in Iowa. They have their own dishonesty and distortion of Sanders policies and right wing style hit jobs on Sanders from former right wing hit man David Brock.  The problem is that the editorial board of one of Iowa's biggest newspapers endorsed Sanders as the kind of truth teller Iowans and the rest of the country needs. And that the Post seems to be scared to death of. And  with her dishonest embrace of Obama's failed presidency, so is Clinton.