NYT Writer Somehow Manages To Blame Trump Amid Democrats' Iowa Caucus Debacle


If you were liberal, you’d love The New York Times, too.

Amid the national disgrace Democrats are facing over their continuing caucus debacle in Iowa, it takes a writer with the reputational weight of The New York Times behind her to come up with an interpretation of events that somehow tries to reflect badly on President Donald Trump.

A more honest publication might shrink back from the mental gymnastics entailed in blaming a Republican incumbent president for the public relations fallout from an opposition party’s demonstrable incompetence in organizing a caucus contest.

But honesty hasn’t been a hallmark of the Times for some time now, and certainly not in since Trump became prominent in politics.

So a tweet Tuesday by The Times’ Maggie Haberman, an unapologetic liberal, was just what the doctor ordered for bruised liberal egos.

Watch: Tucker Carlson Says Election '100% Stolen' from Trump, Breaks Down How it Happened

And Haberman’s prescription for recovering from what should be crippling embarrassment?

A heaping dose of blame on Trump – for somehow making Democrats look worse than they would have anyway.

“One thing to consider amid the caucuses snafu — the president has thrown accelerant on distrust of institutions, and this is another one,” Haberman wrote. “He has highlighted the Dem party ills around this caucus in tweets. It is in contrast to Obama silence on the Romney/Santo mess in 2012.”

(The 2012 reference was to a dispute over the Republican delegates won by former Sen. Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney, as Fox News reported at the time. It wasn’t a complete meltdown of the entire caucus-counting system. If what happened to the GOP in 2012 was a “mess,” what happened to the Democrats on Monday was armageddon.)

Now, a tweet like this from another Times writer – say a member of the insipid staff of the paper’s oh-so-progressive Arts section – might have been understandable.

But Haberman is the White House correspondent for the Gray Lady.

That means that an actual “reporter,” with an actual “beat” – and a fairly important one at that – is capable of not only dreaming up this sort of nonsense, but arrogant enough to publish it for the world to see.

The Trump tweets Haberman was referring to — which she’s claiming constituted an “accelerant of distrust” on institutions like the Iowa caucuses — were pretty standard fare for Trump, and pretty much what most sane Americans were probably thinking when they woke up Tuesday morning and found out what a fiasco had taken place in the Hawkeye State overnight.

Hunter Biden Plays the Victim in Rare Interview, and Mainstream Media Helps Him Out

“The Democrat Party in Iowa really messed up, but the Republican Party did not,” Trump wrote.

And there was this one, too — calling the caucuses an “unmitigated disaster.” Not many would disagree.

And of course, it wouldn’t be Trump without some mockery, but still well within the bounds of normal political discourse in 2020.

There’s no need to defend Trump’s tweets because they were, for the most part, statements of fact, with a little Trumpian bragging and some perfectly understandable ribbing.

Are you surprised liberals are blaming Trump because Iowa made them look bad?

Besides, anyone who followed the caucuses Monday night knew Trump had been declared the winner within about a half an hour of the caucuses beginning, as Politico noted.

Given that the GOP results were known before “The Bachelor” was over on the East Coast, and the results of the Democratic caucuses were still an utter mystery by the next morning, it’s a pretty good bet that anyone who cared would have known the Democrats had screwed up royally without any help from the White House.

And there were plenty of respondents to Haberman’s tweet who didn’t mind pointing out how inane her post was, considering The Times has done little throughout the Trump years but build up scorn toward the institution of the presidency and any lawmaker who supports the current president.

And then there was this one:

The reference was to Haberman’s being implicated in the WikiLeaks scandal surrounding the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.

As Glenn Greenwald wrote at The Intercept in October 2016:

“One January 2015 strategy document — designed to plant stories on Clinton’s decision-making process about whether to run for president — singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a ‘friendly journalist’ who has ‘teed up’ stories for them in the past and ‘never disappointed’ them.”

Think about that for a second.

A reporter for a supposedly mainstream news organization was known to a political campaign as “friendly journalist” who has “teed up” stories for the relevant a political party.

And now, after having been exposed as a partisan hack before the world, this same so-called “journalist” has the arrogance to blame Trump for the fact that the party she favors is a laughingstock after making a shambles of a crucial step in the primary process.

That’s a willful suspension of disbelief that seems only possible among avid liberals and the journalists who protect their worldview.

If you were a liberal, you’d love The New York Times, too.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , ,
Joe has spent more than 30 years as a reporter, copy editor and metro desk editor in newsrooms in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Florida. He's been with Liftable Media since 2015.
Joe has spent more than 30 years as a reporter, copy editor and metro editor in newsrooms in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Florida. He's been with Liftable Media since 2015. Largely a product of Catholic schools, who discovered Ayn Rand in college, Joe is a lifelong newspaperman who learned enough about the trade to be skeptical of every word ever written. He was also lucky enough to have a job that didn't need a printing press to do it.