The nation's leading newspaper would of course celebrate a First Amendment victory at the Supreme Court, right? Well, not exactly. Front-page headline: "Dissenters Argue That Ruling Will Corrupt ...
Paul Krugman feels forsaken by The One: "But I have to say, I'm pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready ...
The Times points out four gaffes made by Democrat Martha Coakley during her losing campaign to Republican Scott Brown. So why didn't the Times mention them during the actual campaign?
Congressional reporter Carl Hulse sees the bright side for the Democrats, who just might turn this crushing defeat into an eventual victory: "Amid the day's gloom, Democrats saw opportunity as ...
Don't blame Obama - all these Democratic losses are just about state issues: "The voters of Massachusetts were definitely angry about taxes, although the ones they seemed most ticked off about ...
The paper's political profile writer Mark Leibovichmaintains his usual pro-Democratic double standard: "[Scott Brown] strives for 'total discipline' but can be prone to curious public statements ...
Adam Nagourney on Tuesday morning, hypothesizing a Scott Brown victory and already discounting its import: "If he does win, what meaning does the victory hold a month from now, much less 11 months ...
