And why is the New York Times referencing them--legitimizing them--in an analysis piece as if they matter? I mean honestly, Journal editorials this year have been just hacktackular displays of mindless, partisan anti-Obama fear mongering. What journalist takes them seriously? Answer: New York Times journalists.
From the Times' John Harwood, who despite Obama's eye-popping 68 percent job approval rating, types up a piece about how there are "signs" that things might turn against him very quickly (no, seriously):
Mr. Obama exploited the nation's alarm in seeking rapid action on his $800 billion economic stimulus plan. Conservatives, pointing to Mr. Emanuel's remarks, accused the administration of pursuing what Wall Street Journal editorialists called a "40-year wish list" for liberals.
First, nice use of "exploited" right? Obama, according to Harwood, played off the fears of Americans in order to pass a stimulus bill. Harwood's proof that Obama didn't, y'know, actually believe the stimulus bill was needed to avert an economic catastrophe, and that he simply "exploited" fears? Harwood doesn't have any evidence, but that doesn't stop him from making the claim as fact. "Exploited" in this context is an obvious GOP talking point and Harwood adopts it with ease.
But more importantly, note the reference to the Journal editorialists. This is very revealing because inside The Village, Journal editorials must be taken seriously. Journal editorial are important and thoughtful. The fact that Journal's wingnuttery editorials often make no sense must never be mentioned out loud.
Why doesn't Harwood just reference Michelle Malkin or Matt Drudge in his piece, since they're about as reliable as the Journal editorialists.