Unfunny NY Times Hack Puts on Brave Face

Never let it be said the folks at the New York Times have their finger on the pulse of the American electorate. Instead of honestly assessing the outcome of the elections Tuesday night, we get some really lame snark from a third-rate columnist who obviously doesn't get out enough.

There seems to be a semiconsensus across the land that the myriad decisions voters made around the country this week all added up to a terrible blow to the White House. If that’s the way we’re going to go, I don’t think it’s fair to dump all the blame on gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia.

Although there is no way to deny that New Jersey and Virginia were terrible, horrible, disastrous, cataclysmic blows to Obama’s prestige. No wonder the White House said he was not watching the results come in. How could the man have gotten any sleep after he realized that his lukewarm support of an inept candidate whose most notable claim to fame was experience in hog castration was not enough to ensure a Democratic victory in Virginia?

New Jersey was even worse. The defeat of Gov. Jon Corzine made it clear that the young and minority voters who turned out for Obama will not necessarily show up at the polls in order to re-elect an uncharismatic former Wall Street big shot who failed to deliver on his most important campaign promises while serving as the public face of a state party that specializes in getting indicted.

They would not rally around Corzine even when the president asked them! Really, what good are coattails if they can’t drag an unlovable guy from a deeply corrupt party into a second term?

Curious, but how much coverage did the Times pay to the "deeply corrupt" Democrats in the lead-up to the New Jersey election? And if the New Jersey Democrats are so corrupt and Corzine so unlovable, why did the Times endorse him?

A New York Times poll completed last week captured the way New Jersey voters have been grumbling about all their choices for governor. But Jon Corzine, who is slightly ahead among likely voters, is a decent man with a laudable set of goals for his state. We endorse him for re-election in New Jersey on Nov. 3.

So they endorse "an uncharismatic former Wall Street big shot who failed to deliver on his most important campaign promises" and when their guy loses we're supposed to pretend it didn't mean anything. Let's pretend that 20% swing for the Republican at the top of the ticket from 2008 to 2009 means nothing.

Just keep believing that.