New York Times Advises Democrats To Bend Over And Take it From Terrorist Republicans

Like any insane person, the New York Times editorial page can have a moment of lucidity. Alas, it is always but a moment, as the insanity tends to creep back in just when you were starting to appreciate hearing something other than the babbling of a madman...

Today's editorial, on the Obama/Republican tax-cut deal:

...the Democrats should vote for this deal, because it is the only one they are going to get. Mr. Obama made that case — strongly — on Tuesday, summoning an eloquence that is often elusive, as it was on Monday when he first announced the deal. Without this bargain, income taxes on the middle class would rise. Unemployment insurance for millions of Americans would expire. And many other important tax breaks for low- and middle-income workers — including a 2 percent payroll tax cut and college tuition credits — would not be possible.

If angry Democrats blow up the deal, they will be left vainly groping for something better in a new Congress where they will have far less influence than they have now. The middle class and the unemployed would be seriously hurt.

The president, and particularly Congressional Democrats, might not be in this bind if they had fought harder against the high-end tax cuts before the midterm elections. But that moment has passed.

President Obama was right to use the metaphor of hostage-taking to describe the Republicans’ tactics...

Well, the Times is right about one thing - for the Democrats (not the American people), this deal sucks, but they ain't gonna get a better one. And left unspoken is that if they do hold out, and the president refuses to sign a bill presented by the new Congress that is decidedly more conservative, it will be the president and his party that will be viewed as hostage-takers - as well as thief's, liars, con-men, and fools...

But back to he madness. Mr. Obama made that case — strongly — on Tuesday, summoning an eloquence that is often elusive...

Really? Jennifer Rubin, channelling her inner Comic Book Guy, called it The Worst Press Conference Ever. Over at Instapundit, the agreement is legion. John Podhoretz labeled it as one of the most bizarre political events of my lifetime....

And The Times calls it an elusive eloquence....well, I suppose it takes a madman to understand one, but encouraging the paranoid in their delusional fantasies is not considered wise counsel. (I'm not just talking about the president here, I'm talking about his few remaining True Believers as well). Nor is it especially "enlightened" to encourage an American(?) president to call his political opponents hostage taking bomb throwers.

Unless, of course, you take it in stride when your champion is called by the same names. Which will happen, surely as pride goeth before a fall. Let's see how enamored the Times is of the rhetoric it encourages when it is directed at their side...