Why Aren’t Democrats Walking Away With the Midterms?

N Y Times ^ | Nov. 2, 2018 | Bret Stephens

[USS Alaska]

I'd go over to DU myself,

I used to visit DU but getting all the shitstains removed from my system was too time consuming. Why go there? Just tune in cnn for 1-2 minutes and you have it all.

[Dan in Wichita]

LOL, you’re right about that!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The tragedy of Pittsburgh illustrates, among other things, that the president cannot unite us, even in our grief.

. . . and mostly, that the Democrats refuse to be united with other Americans.

[Rummyfan]

Because more and more people
Are on to the Dems’ nonsense.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Surprising article from the NYT, even though it's only an op ed.

The salient point is that it is written by Bret Stephens, an op-ed writer formerly for the Wall Street Journal. This does not mean, however, that I consider him a fellow conservative. He once wrote (my words, not his, but) that conservatives think the Constitution is so perfect that it doesn’t even need conserving.

. . . which is obviously the last thing that an actual conservative would think.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Not just the Times. From Bret Stephens. He had to leave the WSJ because the rest of the editorial board there made peace with the reality of the Trump presidency but he just couldn’t.

I too noticed the byline.http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3702540/posts?page=65#65

He was the guy who wrote "If you're not appalled by Trump you're appalling".

That’s a great line, but it needs work: "If you're not appalled by Trump ^{The New York Times,} you’re appalling”.

The fact that he is now slowly, haltingly, kicking and screaming, coming around to realize he was wrong is very interesting. Should the Blue Wave fail to materialize next Tuesday he may just do a complete mea culpa.

That, I doubt. He’s a MSMer from way back. The only way to get that type of person’s attention is with a two by four. IMHO nothing short of winning a huge libel suit against the Associated Press and its membership, joint and several liability has any chance of getting their attention. Like the First Amendment, the NY Times v. Sullivan SCOTUS ruling which makes it essentially impossible for Democrats or Republicans to sue for libel is predicated on the assumption, not that journalists are objective, but that journalism is ideologically heterogeneous. The wire services in general, and the AP in particular, invalidate that assumption:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)

The AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all major US journalism - and it has been in continuous operation since before the Civil War. You have to be naive in the extreme to take for granted that "all major US journalism” has, in more than a century and a half, found no way of exploiting their opportunity to conspire against the public. The NY Times v. Sullivan SCOTUS ruling applies to Democrats and Republicans alike - and is precisely as fair to both as the proverbial law against sleeping under bridges is to poor people just because it applies to rich and poor. Republicans get libeled frequently, and Democrats almost never do.

[damper99]

Does anyone venture over to Democrat Underground? What is their attitude toward this election? Are they confident?

They think they have the House under control and have one thread started on how they can get 60 senators by 2020. It has a list of 10 or so Republican senators with a democrat governor and pose the premise of "if these senators resign or have an untimely death, the governor would appoint a democrat in their place."

[Dan in Wichita]

Thanks for responding. Lets hope they have a miserable time on Tuesday night. Maybe you can report back to us at FR.

[nobamanomore]

Another question. Why doesn’t everyone subscribe to the NYT? After all, everyone they talk to loves the paper.