In Sunday’s New York Times, congressional correspondent Jennifer Steinhauer tried to defuse a potent line of attack by Republican U.S. Senate candidate Martha McSally against her Democratic challenger Kyrsten Sinema in “Charge of Treason Escalates In Close Race for Arizona Senate Seat.” Steinhauer warned "Ms. McSally’s ads and those of her supporters have been relentlessly negative and darkly accusative, which is a great primary play, but may hurt her with general election voters."



Tuesday’s New York Times featured a humdrum personal profile of its own reporter, Maggie Haberman, whose only point of interest was an offensive comparison the White House reporter made between Michael Bloomberg’s 2001 run for mayor of New York City and Donald Trump’s run for president in 2016. In both cases, “an unprecedented form of terror in an election” resulted in an unlikely result. One was an Islamist terrorist attack that murdered over 3000 people; the other, some embarrassing campaign emails that may have damaged Clinton’s prospects over Trump. Same thing, really, right?



Republican opposition to ObamaCare had little to do with spiraling costs, giveaways to insurance companies, or the rationing dangers and proven inefficiencies of government-run health care. According to the front of Saturday’s New York Times it all came down to anti-Obama rage. “An Angry Vow Fizzles for Lack of a Viable Plan -- After 7 Years, G.O.P. Can’t Turn Rage Into Results” was the A1 story from reporters Matt Flegenheimer, Jonathan Martin and Jennifer Steinhauer, all of whom are regular subjects at Newsbusters. It was a fitting conclusion to the NYT’s coverage of the so-far unsuccessful Republican drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act. For the last seven years Times reporters, not all of whom have a death grip on free-market principles, snidely insisted that Republicans were aligned against it not on principle, but for reasons of cruelty and anti-Obama racism (especially from the Tea Party).



Gloom and doom greeted gave the president’s surprise victory on health care on the front of the New York Times. The paper gave the hard-fought legislative victory the same partisan treatment it gave to Trump’s tax cut proposals. The health care bill that would reverse parts of Obamacare, which squeaked through the House of Representatives, was a legislative victory fraught with “peril” from the paper’s perspective, with baleful predictions that echoed the Times’ treatment of the (shockingly successful) Trump presidential campaign.



The New York Times has already made several pilgrimages down to Georgia to flatter Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff, who may take a House seat for the Democrats in a special election to replace Republican Tom Price, who joined President Trump’s cabinet. Political reporter Jonathan Martin made Monday’s front page with yet another one, this one focusing on GOP disarray: “For the G.O.P., A  House Race Blurs Identity.” The online headline was more direct: “As Georgia Vote Nears, G.O.P. Asks if Ideological Purity Matters Anymore.” Next to an odd, unflattering photo of two sad-sack looking Republicans at a debate, Martin sketched a Republican Party identity crisis.



The Democrats’ mid-term election hope, the man who may turn the Trumpian tide, is Jon Ossoff, a young progressive candidate for the Georgia congressional seat vacated by Tom Price. Ossoff hopes to triumph in the open primary in Georgia’s congressional district to be held April 18, and he has the whole of the New York Times reporting staff solidly behind him. On Wednesday, Trip Gabriel and Richard Fausset enthused, “Georgia’s Long-Silent Liberals Come Out for a Congressional Race," but that was only the latest bit of cheerleading.



Reporter Jennifer Steinhauer has been at the New York Times since 1989, and has been covering Congress since 2010. Despite her decades of experience, she committed two horribly ignorant errors in her Thursday coverage of the Senate's vote to undo an Obama administration rule which had prevented states from "blocking funding for family planning clinics that also provide abortions."



The New York Times engaged in some serious labeling overload (and a bit of post-mortem grave-dancing over the House Freedom Caucus) in the run-up and aftermath of the failure of Republicans in Congress to pass a bill repealing and replacing Obamacare. A nasty online headline no doubt brought chortles to the smug liberals who read the Times: “Republicans Land a Punch on Health Care, to Their Own Face.”

 



Sunday’s New York Times may as well have been the sore loser edition, still obsessed with conjuring up links, no matter how tenuous, between Donald Trump and Russia, as shown in the off-lead story by Mike McIntire, “How Putin Fan Peddled Trump From Overseas – ‘Patriot’ Site Promoted Hoaxes to Americans.” Two other stories complained of Trump's "radical" and "hard-line" staff picks.



The New York Times cynically used “the children” to advance Hillary Clinton’s election prospects (and the Democrats' attempt to take the Senate) in Wednesday’s edition, trashing Trump as a bad role model for children on the front page, while hailing Hillary as an anti-bully heroine inside. Jennifer Steinhauer’s Wednesday front-page story was headlined: “Trump as Role Model? Ayotte ‘Absolutely’ Has Second Thoughts.” While Matt Flegenheimer used children again for another attack on Trump in “Clinton’s Call to Girls: Stand Tall and Be Proud.”



New York Times Jennifer Steinhauer’s “Congressional Memo” was the lead National section story in Wednesday’s edition, dripping with her trademark sneering condescension toward conservatives in Congress for not caving in to the Democrats on their issues: “A G.O.P. Fear In the House: Cooperation After Nov. 8." She wrote: "A big conspiracy theory in Washington these days, perhaps second only to the one concerning Hillary Clinton’s supposed body double, is the fear among some House Republicans of what President Obama and their party leaders might cook up during a lame-duck session of Congress after Election Day."



No sympathy for the right-wing devil: After months of hostile coverage of Donald Trump, the New York Times saved its most personal hostility toward the only candidate on the Republican side that truly challenged Trump’s rise: Sen. Ted Cruz.

The front of Friday’s New York Times featured a “political memo” by Jennifer Steinhauer and Matt Flegenheimer, “Cruz’s Gamble On Redefining Race for 2020 – Defiance May Backfire as Critics See Betrayal.” The personal insults came fast and furious. Flegenheimer, who last December  cast Cruz as an unlikeable, socially awkward “bomb-thrower” ideologue and even held his facial features against him, helped penned more personal attacks on the conservative politician's "self-regard."