The mainstream media have taken a lot of deserved crap for their political coverage the past decade (case in point). Whether it’s the sense that it would be biased to say one party’s worse than the other, fear of Republican rage, a reflexive conservative bias (liberals are the girly side of politics so we have to be nice), or Republican branding, they give Republicans a free pass on stuff they’d pound a Democrat for.
Something Dems deserve to be criticized for is that many of them are still reluctant to fight, still terrified of looking too extreme in the face of fascism. The NYT, however, thinks the issue is Dems are too shrill (liberals are always too shrill in the eyes of mainstream pundits). Any attempt to challenge the Felon should start by admitting he’s the president and that some of what he’s done is legal (hilzoy points out that’s a low bar). And we definitely shouldn’t criticize him for conservative policies or say that anything he’s doing that’s legal is bad. He may even have some good ideas!
Nobody’s denying he’s won the election. It’s also completely irrelevant to the Felon shredding democracy, sending people to El Salvador without trial or due process, impounding funds, claiming a right to strip Harvard of its non-profit status and demanding punishment for anyone who ever said widdle baby Donny wasn’t the bestest widdle president in all of history. And even if the Felon and RFK Jr.’s work gutting healthcare is completely legal it’s very bad.
For a simple example even the NYT can grasp, saying he wants Canada annexed is, as far as I know, legal. It’s stupid politics and stupid diplomacy. As Shakezula says of the administration repeatedly crooning about how it cherishes Canada: “The White House’s Days Without Sounding Like a Serial Killer Who Keeps His Victims’ Molars tracker remains stuck at 0.”
