NY Times Editorial Board Melts Down in Deceptive Rant Over GOP’s ‘Racist’ ‘Insurrection’

On Saturday evening (published in print on Sunday), the editorial board at the New York Times had an epic meltdown over the Republican Party’s allegedly shabby treatment of President Barack Obama.

Although its title claimed that the GOP had entered “A New Phase in Anti-Obama Attacks,” nothing truly new seemed to prompt this rant. Its primary focus was the letter 47 GOP Senators led by Tom Cotton of Arkansas sent to Iran’s leaders. But that was a month ago, on March 9. The Times’s take on that letter was so embarrassing that it tried to keep curious readers from actually seeing it, forcing them to click through to two other items before deigning to expose them to its almost bland but legally and constitutionally accurate text.

The editorial’s other source of phony outrage is also a month old. Legislators in one state, Arizona — arguably the state most adversely affected by the Obama’s unilateral attempts to impose illegal-immigrant amnesty — are fed up, and have indicated that they are under no obligation to obey or facilitate certain presidential executive orders.

Mind you, at the Times, all of these things are not actions of a loyal opposition. They represent “insurrection,” with (naturally) “race” as its root component (bolds and numbered tags are mine):

Republican lawmakers in Washington and around the country have been focused on blocking Mr. Obama’s agenda and denigrating him personally since the day he took office in 2009. But even against that backdrop, and even by the dismal standards of political discourse today, the tone of the current attacks is disturbing. So is their evident intent — to undermine not just Mr. Obama’s policies, but his very legitimacy as president.

It is a line of attack that echoes Republicans’ earlier questioning of Mr. Obama’s American citizenship. [1] Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message — reminding people that Mr. Obama was black [2], suggesting he was African [3], and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim. [3] The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it. [4]

Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators [5] to the leadership of Iran saying Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. [6] Try to imagine the outrage from Republicans if a similar group of Democrats had written to the Kremlin in 1986 telling Mikhail Gorbachev that President Ronald Reagan did not have the authority to negotiate a nuclear arms deal at the Reykjavik summit meeting that winter.

There is no functional difference between that example and the Iran talks [7], except that the congressional Republican caucus does not like Mr. Obama and wants to deny him any policy victory.

… Arizona legislators, for example, have been working on a bill that “prohibits this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with an executive order issued by the president of the United States [8] that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the United States Constitution.”

The bill sounds an awful lot like John C. Calhoun’s secessionist screed of 1828, the South Carolina Exposition and Protest. [9]

… Republicans defend this sort of action by accusing Mr. Obama of acting like a king and citing executive actions he has taken — on immigration and pollution among other things. That’s nonsense. The same Republicans had no objection when President George W. Bush used his executive authority to authorize the torture of terrorism suspects and tap the phones of American citizens. [10] It is not executive orders the Republicans object to; it is Mr. Obama’s policies, and Mr. Obama.

… If this insurrection [11] is driven by something other than a blend of ideological extremism and personal animosity, it is not clear what that might be. But it is ugly, it deepens mistrust of government and it harms the office of the president, not just Mr. Obama. [12]

Notes:

[1] — The Times seems to forget that the question of Obama’s eligibility was first raised by Democrats, and, for what little it is worth, is still considered legitimate by many of those same Democrats.

[2] — Obama isn’t “black” as normal people would define it. He and the press have self-defined it in the face of the facts which say otherwise.

[3] — Isn’t it weird how stuff like this occasionally surfaces? Does anyone remember similar claims about George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?

[4] — It’s “impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it” (the alleged “current offensive). I’m dismissing it, because it’s utter horse manure.

[5] — One would think that a link to “was a letter” would, well, link readers to the letter. It doesn’t. That’s likely because the Times knows that the letter doesn’t say what it claims it says.

To get to the letter at the Times, one must:

• Click on the editorial’s “was a letter” link.
• That takes you to a March 11 Times editorial with the following mature title: “Republican Idiocy on Iran.”
• Click on the “letter that he and 46 Senate colleagues” within that March 11 editorial.
• That takes you to another Times link, this time a March 9 story by Peter Baker (“G.O.P. Senators’ Letter to Iran About Nuclear Deal Angers White House”).
• Finally, if you click on the “open letter” link within Baker’s report, you get taken to the actual letter.

Here is that letter in full, absent 45 of the 47 signatures:

[6] — The letter does not say or even imply that “Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program.” He can “conclude” whatever he wants to conclude, but for a treaty to be binding, it has to be in writing, and Congress has to ratify it. Obama has for now dodged that inconvenient problem by not having anything in writing to ratify. Somehow, the Times doesn’t seem to have a problem with this dangerous gambit, even though it has already led to open disagreements with Iran as to what John Kerry and his merry band of sellouts really agreed to.

[7] — There’s a big difference between Iran and Reykjavik. Reagan walked away from what would have been a very bad deal with Russia. Obama, Kerry and the current cadre of diplomats, on the other hand, are embracing a very bad deal with Iran, and seemingly working as hard as they can to make it worse.

[8] — Imagine that. Arizona wants to enforce real laws, not arbitrary executive orders which intend to force states to expend resources neither Congress nor its legislators ever approved.

[9] — Arizona isn’t thinking about seceding, so the Times writers must be hearing voices in their heads. Additionally, John Calhoun left the short-lived Nullifier Party to become … a Democrat.

[10] — Whatever the merits or demerits of Bush’s moves, the ones the Times cited were within the scope of authority and duties as commander-in-chief. That argument can’t be made about Obama’s immigration and other moves. They’re simply policies being carried out without Congressional approval. As such, they are indeed examples of Obama “acting like a king.”

[11] — So now Republicans, who in general have a hard time organizing a bake sale, are committing “insurrection” (“an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government”) by outlining what the Constitution says and asserting states’ rights? Spare us. Sentiments like those are welcome in Venezuela and Cuba, not here — at least for now.

[12] — Nothing has “deepened mistrust of the government” or “harmed the office of the President” more than Barack Obama’s long list (now up to 1,027) of “well sourced examples of … lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, hypocrisy, waste, etc.” Just one — “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” has done far more damage than any imagined GOP “insurrection” has.

Editorials such as these hasten the Times’s journey into eventually becoming Manhattan’s quaint little alternative newspaper with a few fevered fans sprinkled elsewhere throughout the nation.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.