New York Times congressional reporters Carl Hulse and Emily Cochrane gave the “tick-tock” on the Senate passage of a coronavirus stimulus package -- at least as told by Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer: “Passing the Stimulus: Nonstarter at A.M. To 96-0 at Midnight -- How the polarized Senate found a way to negotiate a plan to help an ailing nation.” Schumer guided the story, with Hulse as usual happy to be pulled along by Democratic talking points. There was no mention of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sabotaging the crisis package by attempting to shoehorn in airline emission regulations and other Green New Deal items.



New York Times congressional correspondent Carl Hulse predictably shrugged off Sen. Chuck Schumer’s volatile verbal threats directed at two Supreme Court justices nominated by the Trump administration: “Schumer Regrets Content, But Not Spirit, of Warning.” Hulse generally gives Democrats the benefit of the doubt when they make nasty attacks on Republicans, and similarly shrugged off Schumer’s inflammatory rhetoric at a rally, warning the justices not to take away abortion rights. Hulse let Schumer “clarify” his remarks.



More coronavirus bias from the New York Times, with congressional reporter-columnist Carl Hulse on Thursday, “A Sense of Emergency And Fear Can Become Powerful Political Tools,” pretending that only Republicans play partisan politics with potential pandemics. And Maggie Haberman and Annie Karni positively gloated in a “news analysis,” “A Bad Week for the President, Made Worse by Biden.”



While reading the absurd New York Times impeachment porn fantasy by Carl Hulse, you have to pinch yourself every few sentences to remind yourself that you are actually reading a bizarre what-if written by the chief Washington correspondent for that newspaper and not the wild speculations of a DUer loon at the Democratic Underground. What-if an asteroid were to hit the planet to disrupt the impeachment process? Nope. Something even more ridiculous.

 

>What if the Senate votes to convict Trump after he was impeached by the House, meaning about 20 Republican senators would willing commit political suicide to satisfy the Democrats, and then, and then just a majority of them could vote to keep him from running for President again.



While he’s received some praise during his congressional career, the liberal media’s use of sudden respect boiled with Congressman Will Hurd (R-TX) announcing that he won’t seek reelection. And, as with many cases of when GOPers either retire or pass away, the liberal media used the occasion to lament how their hated opposition just isn’t as respectable as it used to be. Throughout the day on Friday, CNN put that truism on display.



Congressional reporter Carl Hulse enjoyed piling on Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell just a bit too much in Wednesday’s lead New York Times slot: “Pressure Mounts On Senate Leader To Secure Ballot – Some in G.O.P. Softening – McConnell Impedes Bills, and Seethes Over Tag of ‘Moscow Mitch.’” It’s Hulse’s favorite kind of story: Democrats gleefully putting Republicans under pressure, with Hulse cheering them on. Hulse tends to condone whatever political tactics the Democrats use against Republicans, however disreputable they might be: "Democrats pressed their advantage. And why not? The hashtag #MoscowMitchMcTraitor was trending on Twitter, and Senate Republicans of all stripes were being asked about the blockade."



Wednesday evening was not a good time for MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman, who posted a tweet containing a picture of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer attending a party hosted by longtime New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. However, the newsman soon had to remove his tweet since it embarrassingly showed both liberal leaders being forced to stand outside the building because the event drew a very large crowd, a development described as “genuinely hilarious” by the managing editor of a news website.



Former senator and vice president Joe Biden is officially running for president, and once again went to Anita Hill in its front-page story Friday, “Biden’s ‘Regret’ For Hill’s Pain Fails to Soothe.” Hill is seen by the press as a victim of both Clarence Thomas and the all-white, all-male Senate Judiciary Committee. She made regular appearances in the paper during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, and been given a fresh life with Biden’s presidential announcement: "....Ms. Hill says the call from Mr. Biden left her feeling deeply unsatisfied."



Despite the fact that CNN has covered the latest anti-Semitism from Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) throughout the day on Monday, numerous analysts and hosts have tried to assist Omar by muddying the waters, suggesting House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is also anti-Semitic for a tweet last year criticizing the left-wing views of Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, and Tom Steyer.



New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse, always eager for signs of Republican trouble, gleefully piled on to the Kavanaugh scrum with “Resume Glittered, but the Reality Was Something Else Again” in Wednesday’s edition. Not to be outdone, Sydney Ember filed a fan letter in the guise of an interview with “fiery” Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, infamous for saying Kavanaugh’s conservative approach to the Constitution made his rape denial less believable: “‘I Believe  Her’: Mazie Hirono Takes an Aggressive Stance in Kavanaugh Hearings.”



New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse once again rationalized and trumpeted childish and undignified Democratic tactics during Senate Judiciary hearings, in the party’s cynical yet (so far) failed attempt to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Hulse on Saturday celebrated the Democrats showing their voters "that they would not be bulldozed by Republicans."



As the Supreme Court confirmation process for Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh descends into Democratic-inspired pandemonium, New York Times congressional reporter Carl Hulse skipped the Democratic-inspired partisanship of previous Supreme Court hearings in two pieces for the New York Times, while reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg pondered if Kavanaugh was a threat to women's rights.