What the Hell is the New York Times Smoking

Their editorial today is so detached from reality it is mind-blowing:

There are many theories about the import of Scott Brown’s upset victory in the race for Edward Kennedy’s former Senate seat. To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year.

Not even remotely a verdict on his Presidency? Not even remotely? So what is it then? Note they point out many theories but they don't seem to want to say which one they support. I guess technically though it wasn't a "national" referendum on healthcare reform as only Massachusetts voters participated. It all depends on what your definition of is, is.

Mr. Obama has done many important things on the environment, and in foreign affairs, and in preventing the nation’s banking system from collapsing in the face of a financial crisis he inherited.

Crediting his with anything here is such a stretch that even Plastic Man wouldn't try to attempt it. On the environment, Cap and Trade didn't pass and Copenhagen was a boondoggle that essentially was a shakedown by poor repressive regimes trying to get money from the countries that respect the rights of their citizens (and hence are richer). His foreign affairs have been a complete disaster. Besides alienating some of our closest allies (e.g. the UK, Israel and Eastern Europe) he has nothing to show for it. The Israelis and Palestinians aren't even talking to each other, something they did under Bush, despite the fact that he treated the Israelis as true friends of the United States. And Iran is making a fool of us on the international stage which is bringing us closer to war. And I dont' remember him doing anything to save the banking system. I believe it was the TARP, passed under Bush, and the Federal Reserve, appointed by Bush, that did all the heavy lifting. The only thing Obama seemed to do is sign the Stimulus bill, that pork-laden $787 billion mess that hasn't markedly or sustainably improved our economic situation.

Mr. Obama was right to press for health care reform. But he spent too much time talking to reluctant Democrats and Republicans who never had the slightest intention of supporting him. He sat on the sidelines while the Republicans bombarded Americans with false but effective talk of death panels and a government takeover of their doctors’ offices. And he did not make the case strongly enough that the health care system and the economy are deeply interconnected or explain why Americans should care about this huge issue in the midst of a recession: If they lose their jobs, they lose their health insurance.

Has the New York Times even heard of the Constitution? I know they have a history of being enamored with Stalinist policies, but they should remember that we do have three branches of government and so if the President didn't talk to reluctant Democrats and Republicans, nothing would actually ever pass. He can't just rule by fiat. And on the issue of not linking the healthcare talk with this recession, unfortunately none of the plans I saw had any of the benefits start until 2013/14, and this recession will hopefully be over by then. The only impact the healthcare bills will have on this recession would be to deepen it as the tax increases would start immediately.

He made compromises that resulted in a stimulus bill that wasn’t big enough or properly targeted.

$787 billion not big enough? If you can't do it in $787 billion, I don't think you can do it. And the problem was not that it wasn't properly targeted it was the fact that it was completely wrong-headed. The best way to stimulate the economy is always across the board tax cuts.

We admire Mr. Obama’s intelligence and the careful way he makes decisions. It is reported that he seeks out dissenting views doggedly. He tells Americans the truth.

"It is reported that he seeks out dissenting views doggedly"? That's interesting phrasing as there seems to be no evidence that he actually takes in any of those dissenting views, otherwise his legislation would not be so far left. In my mind, an ultra-liberal Democrat asking a dissenting view from a Marxist doesn't count. And the "he tells Americans the truth?" I don't know where to begin. The lies he has said about healthcare are by themselves incredibly numerous. Remember how you were supposed to be able to keep your insurance if you liked it? That is certainly not what would have been the outcome if his healthcare plan was passed. And then do you remember how he was arguing with George Stephanopoulos on the definition of a tax increase (with the dictionary certainly not on Obama's side)?