The Iowa caucus results and the New York Times editorial page’s lament

By Dave Andrusko

NYTimesbldgWe posted earlier today about last night’s Iowa caucuses. I’d now like to add a few thoughts on the editorial the New York Times ran about Tuesday night’s highly competitive races, “Making Choices in Iowa.”

I do so because it is symptomatic of the hoops through which defenders of the pro-abortion-to-the-core Democratic party and as a preview of the race-to-the-bottom analysis we can expect from the Times and like-minded outlets.

What’s the best way to make your candidate look great, her/his opinions lame-brained? Contrasts, of course, largely imaginary.

For example, candidates in both parties indulged in “emotional venting” but they “could not have been more different in the particulars.”

“The Democratic contest, at least, was a competition of ideas,” the Times intones. “Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were in a virtual dead heat at the caucuses. Though they criticized the Republicans, and each other, they did so with more civility than the Republicans and in service of talking about what they wanted to do, not what President Obama failed to do.”

Well, yes and no and no and yes. We have two parties for a reason–to offer different analyses of the problems at hand and competing solutions. Moreover, Democrats are wedded, willy nilly, to President Obama and his disastrous policy prescriptions (although Sen. Sanders is testing out a trial separation).

Is it a surprise that the Republicans would talk about what Mr. Obama failed to do? No, of course not. It’s even less surprising that they would criticize what he did do, which they believe has placed our nation on a road to second-class status.

And the surrealistic notion that only Clinton and Sanders have “ideas” would be crazy if you don’t understand that “ideas” is code for the Times for agreeing with The One.

The editorial gently and indirectly chastises Sanders for talking about “revolution” (which Sanders insists is actually nothing more than a much-needed grassroots rebellion) and for promising changes (such as “breaking up the banks”) “regardless of whether that is remotely possible.”

The editorial then moves on to praise Clinton because she “frames her candidacy much more cerebrally and pragmatically.” Ah, yes.

So, if we are to believe the editorial page, Republicans are “mean-spirited” (Sen. Ted Cruz), “rabble-rousers” (Mr. Trump) who “demonize” poor old President Obama (Sen. Marco Rubio).

Sen. Sanders is the quirky uncle who makes those odd statements around the dining room table, while Clinton is not only good at “exuding a great deal of fire and energy,” the former Secretary of State is so smart we mere mortals really don’t deserve her.

The irony, obviously, is that who is more mean-spirited, more ready to demonize, more ready to rouse the rabble against Republicans than the editors of the New York Times?

This the alternative galaxy the Times’ editorial page lives in.