Diary

"Massachusetts" editorial by NY Times ("not remotely" a verdict on Obama)

My previous diary was “Massachusetts” by Mitch Stewart of Organizing for America.

Let’s look at the lead editorial in the online New York Times, while this content is still free:

The Massachusetts Election
Published: January 20, 2010
(…)
There are many theories about the import of Scott Brown’s upset victory in the race for Edward Kennedy’s former Senate seat. To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year.

Not remotely a verdict on Obama?

Can you say this much b.s. in the lead editorial in the New York Times? Didn’t Obama actively campaign for Coakley? Didn’t Scott Brown campaign against the Obama agenda, with nationalized healthcare the big issue? Not REMOTELY??

Mr. Obama has done many important things on the environment, and in foreign affairs, and in preventing the nation’s banking system from collapsing in the face of a financial crisis he inherited.

Oh, Obama’s been brilliant on foreign affairs. Iran will go nuclear in how many days now?

But he seems to have lost touch with two core issues for Americans: their jobs and their homes.

He doesn’t care about the private sector. The stimulus was a slush fund for Democrats.

Mr. Obama has done many important things…
Mr. Obama’s challenge…
Mr. Obama was right to press for health care reform…
Mr. Obama has not said or done the right thing often enough…

So if this Massachusetts election is NOT REMOTELY ABOUT OBAMA, why is “Mr. Obama” the lead of the next four paragraphs?

The victory by Mr. Brown, a Republican, should be setting off alarms in the White House.

But you just said it’s not remotely a verdict on Obama! So why should something not even remote set off alarms?

The Democrats had an exceptionally weak candidate in Massachusetts…

That’s not what Obama told Massachusetts voters.

It is indisputable that the Republicans have settled on a tactic of obstruction, disinformation and fear-mongering, but it is equally indisputable that the Democrats have not countered it well.

Obstruction by Republicans? When the Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress? It’s “indisputable” that Republicans lie? So who does tell Americans the truth?

We admire Mr. Obama’s intelligence and the careful way he makes decisions. It is reported that he seeks out dissenting views doggedly. He tells Americans the truth.

Who knew that the NY Times editorials had so many gag lines? Seeks dissenting views? Tells the truth? That’s too funny!

We don’t want Mr. Obama to turn into a hot populist, but he can be too cool and often waits too long to react at big moments. If White House reporters are still making jokes two years from now about checking the president’s pulse, the nation will be in big trouble.

White House reporters are making jokes about Obama? This is the group that voted for him!

For an editorial titled “The Massachusetts election” that’s not remotely about Obama, it sure seemed to be all about Obama!