Is this what the Times was concerned about?

One of the things that New York Times hyperventilated about on the Supreme Court's Citizen's United ruling was the idea that it enabled "special interests" to "corrupt" the political process.

If a member of Congress tries to stand up to a wealthy special interest, its lobbyists can credibly threaten: We’ll spend whatever it takes to defeat you.

So one expects that they'll run an indignant and ferocious editorial decrying this:

SEIU chief Andy Stern took a hard shot at Dem leaders just now for considering a scaled-down health care bill, strongly hinting that labor might not work as hard for Dem candidates in 2010 if they failed to deliver real and comprehensive reform.

“It’s gonna be incredibly difficult to stay focused on national politics if by the end of 2010 we have minimal health care and minimal changes on what’s important to our members,” he said in an interview, ridiculing the emerging Dem approach as “fear masquerading as a strategy.”

My advice for all those awaiting the Times to demonstrate intellectual consistency and condemn this threat: Don't hold your breath.



(H/T: Daniel Foster)