And—if they’re not careful—a whole lot more.
Meanwhile, the only thing the Times is winning is the Wile E. Coyote Sweepstakes.
This is how I became aware of the latest swing and miss by the Times:
Which made me both giddy and frustrated at the same time.
Giddy because of this question that instantly formed in my mind:
Why is the New York Times so intent on strangling this particular candidacy in the crib?
It’s awfully early for this.
And then another question:
Exactly who, amongst all would-be voters for Marco Rubio, do they think will turn away from him because of this hackwork hit piece—which follows their previous hackwork hit piece?
Would Ron Fournier have voted for Rubio if not for these revelations?
Would this guy?
I mean, when you’ve lost Chris Hayes…
Or this guy…
And that’s what frustrates me.
I love Ron Fournier, I sincerely do.
How does somebody with his level of experience miss this?
Why isn’t he asking these questions?
Dowd, meanwhile, is stuck in the “less worse” refrain he shares with Fournier.
(If there were an election between Herod and Jesus these two friends would still complain about “less worse.”)
The idea that Rubio hasn’t done anything wrong doesn’t get past the “less worse” template.
So there’s my frustration.
The giddiness comes from the growing sense of how afraid Democrats are of Marco Rubio making it to the general.
And how much more likely that outcome is with every snafu like this driving conservatives his way.
The New York Times has put me more in Marco’s corner than all his apologists on the right put together have managed so far.
In a crowded field that’s not nothing.
Here’s the other thing:
Do these shenanigans make Marco Rubio more or less appealing to the great mass of unaligned voters out there?
Who are they going to identify with more—
Marco or Hillary?
You’ve already got the most likable candidate in the 2016 race and now you’ve burnished his bona fides as a man of the people.
This may be the day.
This may indeed be the day.