Better Banter

Will there be a New York Times in the 22nd Century? Not at this rate, this pundit posits. The thought occurred to me after reading today's editorial about the supposed dire straits of the Republican party (what else would the Times say?) titled "Whose Century is it Anyway?" Obviously, it's supposed to be the Times' century, and nobody else is getting the message. That the Times is in the tank for the Democrats is not a surprise. But the lengths to which they will go in advancing the Democrat agenda (or denigrading the Republicans') will sometimes still catch me off guard. This is one of those editorials that is so wrong-headed it must be answered point-by point. The general election for president is still a ways off, but the New Hampshire primary campaign is providing a preview of the ultimate contest. So far, it’s not looking so good for the Republicans. The rest of the article explains that it doesn't look good for Republicans because gosh-darn it, they ...

This is no reason to sink his candidacy (there are plenty of legitimate reasons out there to be had), but I was a bit taken aback by Mike Huckabee's victory speech in Iowa last night, when he said, "Tonight we proved that American politics is still in the hands of ordinary people like you." Ordinary people like you. Rest assured, had the patrician Mitt Romney uttered such words, his campaign would be over. Likable, affable Huckabee gets a pass. No mention of this condescension anywhere that I can find. Which is fine, as he certainly meant nothing by it. Here's the thing. Should Huckabee charm his way to the nomination, the free pass is revoked. Gaffes real and imagined will become headlines. The press will fall on him like a ton of bricks, and Mike will wake up after his landslide defeat and wonder what hit him. Really, does anyone anticipate another fawning piece by Frank Rich on Huckabee after the GOP convention gavel falls? Does anyone believe the silence about h...