Benghazi-Palooza: The New York Times Nails The Republican Circus

Gowdy DoodySomething has gotten into the water at the New York Times. This week they published an editorial that is not only rich in facts and substance, it is entertaining and persuasive. The headline announced an excursion into the “Center Ring at the Republican Circus.” And the opening paragraph may be the best introduction to a Times editorial ever:

“The hottest competition in Washington this week is among House Republicans vying for a seat on the Benghazi kangaroo court, also known as the Select House Committee to Inflate a Tragedy Into a Scandal. Half the House has asked to ‘serve’ on the committee, which is understandable since it’s the perfect opportunity to avoid any real work while waving frantically to right-wing voters stomping their feet in the grandstand.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. The Times’ editorial board appears to have hired some writers with both insight and humor. They correctly note that the committee is an unambiguous fraud whose members are only concerned with promoting a manufactured scandal and, of course, themselves. The article goes on to say that the GOP Congress…

“…won’t pass a serious jobs bill, or raise the minimum wage, or reform immigration, but House Republicans think they can earn their pay for the rest of the year by exposing nonexistent malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration.”

The newly appointed chair of the committee, Trey Gowdy, recently proved that he is unfit to lead a fair hearing when he admitted that his party runs the House in a brazenly biased manner. Discussing whether another committee should call expert witnesses to determine whether Lois Lerner waived her 5th Amendment rights, Gowdy said “Let me take out all of the drama. We would pick three that said she waived, and they would pick one that said she didn’t. I hate to do a spoiler, but that’s the way that hearing would go.”

Shameless self-promotion…
Get Fox Nation vs. Reality. Available now at Amazon.

In other words, he is admitting that the GOP-run House would stack the deck in their own favor. So why bother discussing it with experts. That’s a preview of how he can be expected to run the Benghazi committee. And with regard to that IRS pseudo-scandal, the Times continued to needle the scandal mongering of the GOP, saying that Lerner is the person that…

“…they would love to blame for the administration’s crackdown on conservative groups, if only they could prove there was a crackdown, which they can’t, because there wasn’t.”

In addition, the Times couldn’t let the right-wing’s previous obsession with ObamaCare go unmentioned just because it didn’t happen to mark the commencement of Armageddon like they predicted/hoped. So the article noted the GOP’s…

“…need to rouse the most fervent anti-Obama wing of the party and keep it angry enough to deliver its donations and votes to Republicans in the November elections. For a while it seemed as if the Affordable Care Act would perform that role, but Republicans ran into a problem when the country began to realize that it was not destroying American civilization but in fact helping millions of people.”

Finally, the editorial concluded with the correct advice for wavering Democrats:

“Democrats who are now debating whether to participate in the committee shouldn’t hesitate to skip it. Their presence would only lend legitimacy to a farce.”

I can’t remember the last time I read an editorial in the Times that was so spot on in its analysis and delivered with such punch. I hope this wasn’t an aberration or the work of a ghost editor who has since faded back into the ether. We need more of this kind of commentary. And we need it from more than just the New York Times.


9 thoughts on “Benghazi-Palooza: The New York Times Nails The Republican Circus

  1. The Committee will just be more legislative masturbation by the GOP/TP reactionaries.

    More and more I’m coming around to the position that candidates for elective office should have to show competence in economics, civics, government and basic science. Of course, that would eliminate 99% of the GOP/TP

  2. I don’t know if the dems should participate in this charade or not. There are good arguments on both sides. With no presence on the committee, will it look any less of a joke? I think they should send at least one person up and whenever they get the opportunity to speak or ask questions they should mock and ridicule at every opportunity. The list of witnesses they call before the committee should do the same. When asked a question just answer by referring to their testimony from the 5 previous committee witch-hunts and point out they have already answered their ridiculous questions point and laugh at the committee member who just asked the question. I think the dems can work this thing to their advantage, just give the republicans all the rope they want and they will hang themselves!

    • Sending one Dem doesn’t make sense to me. He or she would just look impotent with no power and would appear predictably contrary merely disputing everything the GOP says.

      As for the witnesses, Dems will have no power to call or subpoena witnesses. Every witness will be chosen by the GOP chair. You can count on him stacking the deck with GOP-friendly witnesses. Anyone who has anything to say that is contrary to the GOP agenda will be quickly silenced by the chair who controls the proceedings, including the microphones.

      • I can’t remember where I read it, and it may not actually apply, but I thought it was so the dems could have access to everything that comes out of it. Instead of the deceptive bullshit that’s come out of these things in the recent years, the edited and paraphrased emails and transcripts etc.

        • That’s partially true. There is information to which only members of the committee have access. However, that access is under the control of the chair. So even members can have limited access.

          That’s how Darrell Issa runs his committee. There is data and testimony that only he and the other Repubs can see. That’s something that Elijah Cummings has complained about. And if Gowdy runs his committee the same way, the Dems should definitely have nothing to do with it.

  3. I can’t imagine that a Democrat on the committee would be allowed to point out the silliness of a fourth investigation into the same old stuff.

  4. NY Times writes an editorial worthy of a Ben Rhodes scholar.

  5. This is their big chance to show the entire country that lazy, entitled white Republican men aren’t interested in getting paid public money to do absolutely no real work. It’s usually the ones who yell the loudest about “lazy people who won’t work” who are the laziest and most slothful.

Comments are closed.