The New York Times ran a typically tone-deaf, if not revealing assessment of the state of their own Democrat Party following the special election loss in the Georgia runoff recently.
As is typical in the New York Times, the Democrats writing the piece embedded with half-truths like attributing Jon Ossoff’s fundraising to “small donations” but not mentioning that he set a record for out-of-state dollars with only 3.5% of his money coming from within the district. Nor do they mention that Ossoff was careful to never directly attack Trump, instead running as a moderate Republican to try to win the seat. That would seem to be an important point when trying to make the case that an Ossoff victory would have been an “emphatic statement about the weakness of the Republican Party under President Trump.”
But aside from the typical Times shenanigans that you just have to expect when you try sifting through their coverage, the article did touch on the “seething” dissent that is being experienced within the Democrat Party. More than one Democrat lawmaker expressed desire for new leadership, meaning they want to give Nancy Pelosi the boot:
Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the defeat was “frustrating” and urged a shake-up at the top of the party. “Our leadership owes us an explanation,” said Mr. Moulton, who voted against Ms. Pelosi in the last leadership election. “Personally, I think it’s time for new leadership in the party.”
What’s peculiar is that Moulton didn’t voice opposition to the new leadership of his party’s national committee. Tom Perez has been an abject disaster for the public relations of the party, suggesting that no pro-life Democrat need apply for any open position, and that cursing their way back to power was the best course of action.
And while we’re at it, the problem extends beyond Democrat lawmakers and party leaders. It’s also the messaging of the party’s public spokesmen in media. When a wealthy white man defeated female Hillary Clinton for the presidency, feminists were outraged. When female Karen Handel defeated a wealthy white man for a congressional seat, feminists were outraged. It belies the entire movement and Americans see it and tire of it.
And the Times itself is culpable. The day before they ran this article on Democrat seething, they ran Democrat author Jill Filipovic’s assertions that excused her party and blamed the voters:
“At what point is this not a failure of Democrats, but toxic, vindictive voters willing to elect hateful bigots?”
She really wrote that. Karen Handel is a “hateful bigot.” Why? Because she disagrees with Jill Filipovic? Because she’s a Republican? And there was more:
“Maybe instead of trying to convince hateful white people, Dems should cater to our base – ppl of color, women – to turn out. Cater to them.”
This is the kind of identity politics, the kind of divisive nonsense that has overtaken the Democrat Party. It’s become engrained in their DNA, and until there’s a purge of that bloodstream of hatred and dismissal of anyone who doesn’t think like them, it’s not likely to get better.
But don’t expect to see the Times cover that angle.