New York Times Editorial Board | Media Matters for America

New York Times Editorial Board

Tags ››› New York Times Editorial Board
  • NY Times Editorial Board: Trump’s Claims Of A Rigged Election Are “Not Just Ludicrous, But Dangerous”

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The New York Times editorial board criticized Republican nominee Donald Trump for peddling “ludicrous” and “dangerous” claims that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is “rigging this election,” writing that Trump’s insinuations “further demolish[] public confidence in the foundations of our government.”

    Trump has a long history of pushing widely debunked lies and conspiracy theories, many of which have been hyped by his allies. His current focus on claims of a “rigged election” tap into the long-standing right-wing voter fraud myths used to push discriminatory voter ID laws.

    The Times’ editorial board excoriated Trump for his “ludicrous” and “dangerous” claims, writing that he is “setting the stage for an upwelling of right-wing outrage, cuing up a crisis of electoral legitimacy” that will cause four to eight years of “catcalls and loathing” if Clinton wins. The board explained that while “Trump’s brain is a pincushion for conspiracy theories,” this assertion in particular could “further demolish[] public confidence in the foundations of our government”:

    Donald Trump is calling for volunteers to watch the polls in November, and he is making no bones about why.

    “Help me stop Crooked Hillary from rigging this election!” says the application form on his campaign website.

    There are so many lies and delusions flowing daily from the Trump campaign that it’s easy to miss the times when the Republican nominee is being not just ludicrous, but dangerous. This is one.

    [...]

    He is accusing the government he wants to lead of being both victim and perpetrator of a vast conspiracy. And he is setting the stage for an upwelling of right-wing outrage, cuing up a crisis of electoral legitimacy. If Mrs. Clinton wins, get ready for at least four years, maybe eight, of the catcalls and loathing that plagued President Obama’s two terms.

    A more immediate concern is what happens on Nov. 8, when squads of Trump volunteers fan out to defend their candidate’s presumed victory. It does not seem far-fetched to expect that signatures will be pointlessly challenged and citizens intimidated and inconvenienced, that the ruckus of the Trump campaign will spread to polling places around the country.

    [...]

    Mr. Trump’s brain is a pincushion for conspiracy theories, so maybe it’s no surprise that he thinks the Clinton campaign will be sending African-Americans and foreigners into booths across the country to fake their votes over and over, millions of times.

    Now, more than ever, the country needs responsible political leaders and the courts to defend and expand voting rights, rather than sitting silently while Mr. Trump further demolishes public confidence in the foundations of our government.

  • NY Times Editorial Board Debunks Conservative Myths About Obamacare

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The New York Times editorial board debunked the “big myths” Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are “peddling about the Affordable Care Act and also their ill-conceived plans of what might replace it.” The board wrote that Trump and Cruz are “willing to mislead the public any way they can” to “trash the Affordable Care Act” by “inventing problems that don’t exist and proposing solutions that won’t help.”

    Right-wing media have smeared Obamacare for years with baseless catastrophic predictions and falsehoods, and 2016 Republican presidential candidates have followed suit. That fearmongering has been stunningly wrong, and numerous reports have repeatedly highlighted the Affordable Care Act’s successes in bringing “historic increases in coverage.”

    In an April 19 editorial, the Times’ editorial board explained that, contrary to Trump and Cruz’s misleading attempts to trash the Affordable Care Act, “the law has helped millions of Americans, especially low-wage workers … who previously struggled to pay for coverage.” From the Times’ editorial board:

    “Disaster.” “Incredible economic burden.” “The biggest job-killer in this country.”

    Central to the presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz has been the claim that the Affordable Care Act has been a complete failure, and that the only way to save the country from this scourge is to replace it with something they design.

    [...]

    Mr. Cruz claimed that “millions of Americans” had lost their health insurance because of the health reform law.

    […]

    Insurers did stop offering some plans after the law took effect, including those that didn’t provide required benefits like maternity care or that charged higher premiums to older or sicker people. But people with those plans had the opportunity to sign up for others. And over all, the law has drastically reduced the number of Americans who lack health insurance. According to the Census Bureau, the number of uninsured Americans dropped by 10 million between 2010, when the law passed, and 2014. While critics said employers might stop offering health insurance because of the law, three million people actually gained coverage through their employers between 2010 and 2014.

    [...]

    Mr. Cruz has called the Affordable Care Act “the biggest job-killer in this country” and said “millions of Americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part-time work” because of it. This is false. The unemployment rate has fallen since the law took effect, PolitiFact notes, as has the number of people working part time when they would rather work full time. A 2015 study using data from the Current Population Survey found that the law “had virtually no adverse effect on labor force participation, employment or usual hours worked per week through 2014.”

    [...]

    [T]he biggest obstacle stopping insurers from setting up in more states is not regulation; it’s the difficulty of establishing a network of providers in a new market. And such a structure would destroy the longstanding ability of states to regulate health insurance for their populations. Some states, for instance, require coverage for infertility treatment and others have chosen not to. Allowing cross-border plans would encourage insurers to base themselves in low-regulation states, and the result might be a proliferation of poor-quality plans.

    The Affordable Care Act is not perfect.

    [...]

    But the law has helped millions of Americans, especially low-wage workers like cashiers, cooks and waiters who previously struggled to pay for coverage. In inventing problems that don’t exist and proposing solutions that won’t help, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz show that they don’t care about helping Americans get health care, which has never been their interest. They want to trash the Affordable Care Act, and they’re willing to mislead the public any way they can.

  • NY Times Editorial ​​Slams Court Challenge To Immigration Executive Actions As "A Highly Politicized Anti-Immigrant Crusade”

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The New York Times editorial board condemned the legal challenge to President Obama’s executive actions on immigration as “a highly politicized anti-immigrant crusade wrapped in legal briefs.”

    On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in U.S. v. Texas, the challenge to the Obama administration’s programs that could protect 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation and grant them the legal right to hold a job. Right-wing media have pushed misinformation about the programs, falsely claiming that they will cause a “constitutional crisis,” lead to Obama’s impeachment, cost $2 trillion, and harm American workers.

    On April 16, the Times’ editorial board called the case “one of the most flagrant examples in recent memory of a naked political dispute masquerading as a legal one,” and wrote that the Supreme Court “should reject the plaintiffs’ absurd claim.” The board explained that the actions are, in fact, “well within Mr. Obama’s authority,” given that -- as the Supreme Court observed in 2012 -- “the federal government has ‘broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.’” The board then concluded that Obama’s executive actions to shield the parents of American citizens and permanent residents from deportation are “smart politics and humane policy” and condemned the challenge as “a highly politicized anti-immigrant crusade”:

    On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Texas, one of the most flagrant examples in recent memory of a naked political dispute masquerading as a legal one.

    In this case, 26 Republican-led states brought suit against President Obama’s November 2014 executive actions to protect millions of immigrants from deportation. And once again, the prospect of a 4-to-4 split on the court threatens to spur widespread legal chaos by effectively giving these 26 states the power to set national immigration policy. But it need not come to that. If the justices follow their own precedent as well as longstanding practice, they should reject the plaintiffs’ absurd claim.

    […]

    This is both smart politics and humane policy, and it falls well within Mr. Obama’s authority. As the Supreme Court reiterated in 2012, the federal government has “broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”

    […]

    Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. likes to say that the court is above politics. This case, which has never been more than a highly politicized anti-immigrant crusade wrapped in legal briefs, gives him and the court a clear opportunity to reaffirm that principle and leave fights like these to the political process.

  • Latest CMP Video Deceptively Attacks Planned Parenthood's Patient Consent Process

    New Video Also Shows Symbiotic Relationship Between Anti-Choice Panel And CMP

    ››› ››› SHARON KANN

    On April 5, the Center For Medical Progress (CMP) released its 14th deceptive video -- this one featuring sections of footage from the first hearing of Congress' Select Panel on Infant Lives, which Republicans established in response to CMP's baseless allegations against Planned Parenthood. This latest video attacks Planned Parenthood's patient consent process and demonstrates the dangerous feedback loop operating between CMP and anti-choice lawmakers on the select panel.

  • Journalists And Foreign Policy Experts Call Out Trump's "Completely Uneducated" "Baffling" Foreign Policy

    ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY & CRISTIANO LIMA

    Journalists and foreign policy experts criticized the "unintelligble" foreign policy positions Donald Trump described during interviews with The New York Times and The Washington Post, and called the GOP presidential front-runner's "ignorance" "breathtaking," saying he has "no understanding of the post-war international order that was created by the United States."

  • New York Times Editorial Board Outlines The Consequences Of States Continuing Attempts To Defund Planned Parenthood

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    The New York Times editorial board drew attention to the 23 states that since July have been attempting to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding following a series of "completely bogus" and "deceptively edited" videos released by an anti-choice group whose employees were consequently indicted by a Texas grand jury. The result, the Times editorial board explained, is reduced access to essential health care and "immediate and substantial" harm "on the poorest and most vulnerable women."

    Since July, the anti-choice group Center For Medical Progress (CMP) released a series of highly edited smear videos which they claimed was evidence of Planned Parenthood officials illegally selling fetal tissue and using illegal abortion methods. None of the CMP's claims of illegal activity by Planned Parenthood have borne out: investigations conducted in twelve states and by the U.S. Department Of Health and Human Services found no wrongdoing on the part of the organization. CMP's founder David Daleiden and his associate were indicted by a Houston grand jury in January for tampering with a governmental record in their campaign against Planned Parenthood.

    On March 28, The New York Times editorial board explained that "Since last July, 23 states have tried various ways of cutting money" for Planned Parenthood, and "So far 11 have succeeded," inflicting "substantial and immediate" harm "on the poorest and most vulnerable women." The board noted that the ongoing legislative battles over Planned Parenthood "circle back to the decades-long crusade by conservative lawmakers to end women's access to safe and legal abortion -- and increasingly, to reduce their access to contraception." The result, they explained "is reduced access to essential health care for millions of American women":

    Since last July, 23 states have tried various ways of cutting money for the organization. So far 11 have succeeded, most recently Florida, where Gov. Rick Scott on Friday signed HB 1411, a sweeping anti-abortion bill that, among many destructive provisions, prohibits Medicaid and other public funds from being used to reimburse organizations that work with abortion providers.

    The federal government has warned states that such efforts may be illegal, because federal law entitles Medicaid beneficiaries to receive care from any qualified provider they choose. But that hasn't stopped Republican efforts; similar laws are poised to be enacted in Arizona and Missouri in the coming days.

    The harm inflicted on the poorest and most vulnerable women is substantial and immediate. Planned Parenthood provides contraceptives and other health care services, like cancer screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, to millions of women around the country; for many low-income women it is the only option. Abortions are a tiny fraction of the services Planned Parenthood clinics offer, and public money cannot be used for abortions in almost all cases anyway.

    State lawmakers and governors claim that these health care needs can be easily met by other providers, like community health centers. In reality, many of these "centers" are housed in elementary schools or other facilities that are ill-equipped to handle the large number of patients who previously relied on Planned Parenthood.

    [...]

    All these fights, of course, circle back to the decades-long crusade by conservative lawmakers to end women's access to safe and legal abortion -- and increasingly, to reduce their access to contraception. On Thursday, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana signed a bill that further limits reproductive services in that state, including a flatly unconstitutional ban on abortions for fetal abnormalities and a provision making doctors legally liable in such cases.

    Congress may not have succeeded in hobbling Planned Parenthood, but as these state attacks gain momentum, the result is reduced access to essential health care for millions of American women.

  • NY Times Editorial Board: Republican-Led Effort To Roll Back LGBT Nondiscrimination Protections "Makes North Carolina Pioneer In Bigotry"

    Blog ››› ››› TYLER CHERRY

    The New York Times editorial board torched North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory (R) and the Republican-led legislature for passing an "appalling, unconstitutional" measure rolling back LGBT nondiscrimination protections, condemning the lawmakers for making North Carolina a "pioneer in bigotry."

    On March 23, following a special session convened by North Carolina's Republican-controlled legislature, Republican Gov. Pat McCrory signed into law a bill "that blocks local governments in the state from enacting ordinances to allow transgender people to use public bathrooms that match their gender identities." The measure was introduced in response to a recently passed provision in Charlotte expanding nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people.

    The bill's supporters peddled the spurious argument that the ordinance's nondiscrimination protections for transgender people "[allow] men to use women's bathroom/locker room[s]." This myth was buoyed by Charlotte, NC, television news stations, despite the fact that the talking point has been debunked by law enforcement expertsgovernment officials, and women's safety advocates in cities and states across the country

    On March 25, The New York Times editorial board excoriated the North Carolina legislature for "spuriously portraying transgender women as potential rapists" to ram through an "appalling, unconstitutional bill." The board slammed the "bathroom predator" myth as a "threat [that] exists only in the imagination of bigots," noting (accurately) that "supporters of the measures have been unable to point to a single case that justifies the need to legislate where people should be allowed to use the toilet." The board further wrote that by "promoting the ludicrous idea that transgender women are inherently dangerous, the law endangers citizens who are already disproportionately vulnerable to violence and stigmatization." The board ultimately condemned Gov. McCrory for making the "state a pioneer in bigotry" and accordingly urged voters to "reject" his reelection bid:

    Officials in Charlotte, N.C., spent more than a year carefully considering and debating an antidiscrimination ordinance that was passed in February to promote the city's culture of inclusiveness. State lawmakers quashed it on Wednesday by passing an appalling, unconstitutional bill that bars transgender people from using public restrooms that match their gender identity and prohibits cities from passing antidiscrimination ordinances that protect gay and transgender people.

    Gov. Pat McCrory, who signed the bill into law late Wednesday, said it was necessary to undo Charlotte's ordinance, which included protections for gay and transgender people, because it allowed "men to use women's bathroom/locker room." Proponents of so-called bathroom bills, which have been introduced in state legislatures across the country, have peddled them by spuriously portraying transgender women as potential rapists.

    That threat exists only in the imagination of bigots. Supporters of the measures have been unable to point to a single case that justifies the need to legislate where people should be allowed to use the toilet. North Carolina is the first state to pass such a provision.

    [...]

    Under the law, people in North Carolina are required to use public restrooms that match the gender on their birth certificate. Transgender people in the state can request to have their birth certificate changed only if they have had gender reassignment surgery. Many transgender people cannot afford surgery or choose not to have it.

    By promoting the ludicrous idea that transgender women are inherently dangerous, the law endangers citizens who are already disproportionately vulnerable to violence and stigmatization. Transgender men go largely unmentioned in bathroom bill debates, but that could change. James Parker Sheffield, a transgender man with a beard, exposed the foolishness of the law in a tweet to the governor. "It's now the law for me to share a restroom with your wife," he wrote, attaching a photo of himself.

    [...]

    Mr. McCrory, who is running for re-election, may have assumed the bill would help him in a tight race against Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat who called the measure shameful. "Not only does this hurt North Carolina families, but it hurts our economy as well," Mr. Cooper said in a video message. Voters should reject the candidate who made the state a pioneer in bigotry.

  • Editorial Boards: Right-Wing Arguments Challenging Contraceptive Mandate Are "Absurd," "Extreme" And Resorting To "Hyperbole"

    ››› ››› JULIE ALDERMAN

    On March 23, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Zubik v. Burwell, a consolidated case brought by religious nonprofits challenging a process for opting out of the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The editorial boards of three major newspapers called the right-wing objection in the case "absurd" and pointed out that the government has gone "a long way to accommodate religious objections" already.

  • "Do Your Job": Editorials Implore Senate GOP To Rise Above "Obstruction" And Act On Merrick Garland

    ››› ››› CYDNEY HARGIS & TYLER CHERRY

    Newspaper editorials roundly urged Senate Republicans to stop obstructing the nomination process of Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court vacancy. The editorials chastised "obstructionist" senators for their "stupendous show of political malfeasance" and warned that the obstruction is "out of sync with the nation's best interests," among other criticisms.

  • Media: Rubio's Suspension And Trump's Victories Destroyed The GOP's 2012 "Autopsy Report"

    ››› ››› NICK FERNANDEZ

    Media are pointing to Sen. Marco Rubio's March 15 announcement that he is suspending his campaign to explain that the Republican National Committee's strategy to reach out to minority voters -- established in the committee's so-called "autopsy report" of the 2012 election -- "was spectacularly undone by Donald Trump and his defiant politics of economic and ethnic grievance."