Sunday Schadenfreude: New York Times warns its readers

In an article that could alternatively be titled, “Boy, are we ever screwed,” Carl Hulse informs New York Times readers that red state Senate Democrats face a “terrible vote” over confirmation of the coming Supreme Court nominee of President Trump, which it calls “an agonizing choice.” In other words, President Trump has the Democratic Party right where he wants it, though the Times would never, ever, credit him for outmaneuvering liberals.

Example:

A decision by one or all of them to try to bolster their standing with Republican-leaning voters in their states by backing the president’s nominee would undermine Democratic leaders as they try to sustain party unity. And if their votes put the president’s choice on the court, it could hasten the move to the left by the party’s aggressive activist core, while intensifying the clamor for new, more confrontational leadership.

Note the clear implication that “the party’s aggressive activist core” demanding “new, more confrontational leadership” would be a problem. Certainly, it could be a problem for Chuck Schumer, though the Times won’t come out and say so. And, it would be a problem with voters, too. But again, the Times doesn’t out and admit that there is anything wrong with the crazy left. It’s just all left to implication:

But if they hold together on a “no” vote, those senators could not only surrender their own seats, but by expanding the Republican majority, they could also narrow the path of Democrats to a Senate majority for years to come by ceding those states to Republicans.

If, like me, you are a connoisseur of leftist hand-wringing and inability to fathom how they find themselves accountable to voters, yet stuck with a crazy base that will punish them for reflecting the values of their constituents, then this little article will bring a smile to your face.

In an article that could alternatively be titled, “Boy, are we ever screwed,” Carl Hulse informs New York Times readers that red state Senate Democrats face a “terrible vote” over confirmation of the coming Supreme Court nominee of President Trump, which it calls “an agonizing choice.” In other words, President Trump has the Democratic Party right where he wants it, though the Times would never, ever, credit him for outmaneuvering liberals.

Example:

A decision by one or all of them to try to bolster their standing with Republican-leaning voters in their states by backing the president’s nominee would undermine Democratic leaders as they try to sustain party unity. And if their votes put the president’s choice on the court, it could hasten the move to the left by the party’s aggressive activist core, while intensifying the clamor for new, more confrontational leadership.

Note the clear implication that “the party’s aggressive activist core” demanding “new, more confrontational leadership” would be a problem. Certainly, it could be a problem for Chuck Schumer, though the Times won’t come out and say so. And, it would be a problem with voters, too. But again, the Times doesn’t out and admit that there is anything wrong with the crazy left. It’s just all left to implication:

But if they hold together on a “no” vote, those senators could not only surrender their own seats, but by expanding the Republican majority, they could also narrow the path of Democrats to a Senate majority for years to come by ceding those states to Republicans.

If, like me, you are a connoisseur of leftist hand-wringing and inability to fathom how they find themselves accountable to voters, yet stuck with a crazy base that will punish them for reflecting the values of their constituents, then this little article will bring a smile to your face.