Whiny-Ass Irrelevant Editorial Writers

Sometimes I think that the New York Times tries to corner the market on whiny-ass editorialists. This one was a classic; the editorial goof-balls are babbling on about the need for gun control and how President Obama should push for "sensible gun control."

Let's get this one right out there: "Sensible gun control" to the underwear-wedged types at the Times is code for "confiscation."

Second, the Obama Administration, unlike the Bush Administration (or the editors of the Times), is smart enough to know that the well of political capital is not bottomless. If Obama wanted to see the GOP come roaring back in the 2010 elections, he could do little to help them that would be more effective than pushing gun control. Obama has a lot of bad problems to deal with and there is nothing that would undercut him more than tackling a wedge issue such as gun control.

The Democrats know this. They have some degree of sense and an urge to survive politically. They have made this mistake before and they show no urge to repeat it.

Editorial writers don't have much in the way of sense. That is why they are writing editorials, not reporting on hard news. For example, the reportage of the Wall Street Journal is almost always first-rate while the editorials read as though a pack of Wingnuts are off their meds. The New York Times is no different, only their pack of editorializing baboons come from the other end of the spectrum.