NY Times has a hissy fit over GOP-run House

Thomas Lifson
Losing is tough, but some people know how to lose gracefully. Not so the New York Times, which welcomes the incoming GOP-majority House of Representatives with what can only be called a hissy fit of an editorial. Recall that only a few weeks ago we were being lectured by liberals  about civility in politics, as you contemplate the semi-hysterical prose chosen by Times editors to kick off the 112th Congress:

A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress.

Accusing others of "pomposity" is a particularly rich irony coming from the Times editorial board, isn't it?

But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation's foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?
Well, considering the laughter and scorn that came from various senior House Democrats when asked where the Constitution authorizes ObamaCare's insurance purchase mandate, such a suggestion would not be unjustified. But the Times editors found this contempt for the Constitution unremarkable.


In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.

I would like the distinguished Times editors to specify where the founders "left open to generations of reinterpretation" the text of the Constitution. Where did James Madison instruct us that the text could be reinterpreted?

There are more slurs ("vacuous fundamentalism" among others), but you get the idea. The Times does not like the idea that voters rejected Nancy Pelosi's House, does not like the idea that the Constitution places any constraints on federal power, and does not like Republicans.

How many days you suppose it will be until the Times editorially castigates some Republican over a lack of civility?

Hat tip: Ed Lasky
Losing is tough, but some people know how to lose gracefully. Not so the New York Times, which welcomes the incoming GOP-majority House of Representatives with what can only be called a hissy fit of an editorial. Recall that only a few weeks ago we were being lectured by liberals  about civility in politics, as you contemplate the semi-hysterical prose chosen by Times editors to kick off the 112th Congress:

A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress.

Accusing others of "pomposity" is a particularly rich irony coming from the Times editorial board, isn't it?

But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation's foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?
Well, considering the laughter and scorn that came from various senior House Democrats when asked where the Constitution authorizes ObamaCare's insurance purchase mandate, such a suggestion would not be unjustified. But the Times editors found this contempt for the Constitution unremarkable.


In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.

I would like the distinguished Times editors to specify where the founders "left open to generations of reinterpretation" the text of the Constitution. Where did James Madison instruct us that the text could be reinterpreted?

There are more slurs ("vacuous fundamentalism" among others), but you get the idea. The Times does not like the idea that voters rejected Nancy Pelosi's House, does not like the idea that the Constitution places any constraints on federal power, and does not like Republicans.

How many days you suppose it will be until the Times editorially castigates some Republican over a lack of civility?

Hat tip: Ed Lasky