As Twitchy told you, New York Times opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg tied herself into quite the intellectual pretzel with a piece attempting to explain that ackshually, Christine Blasey Ford’s case against Brett Kavanaugh was a lot stronger than Tara Reade’s case against Joe Biden and Tara Reade isn’t necessarily a liar but let’s face it, she’s probably lying.
Not to be outdone, New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait took Goldberg’s take and ran with it:
Are you actually concerned about workplace harassment? Or just looking for a pretext to change the results of the Democratic primary? https://t.co/akBou8eo7J
— Jonathan Chait (@jonathanchait) May 5, 2020
Chait writes:
Here’s the devilish thing about this Schrödinger’s cat scenario. In the version of reality in which Biden did assault Reade, we can at least debate the justice of throwing him off the ticket. In the version of reality in which he didn’t assault her, it would be a serious miscarriage of justice.
All the writers now urging this were fervent Biden opponents during the primary. None of them seem to have considered that the overwhelming majority of Democrats who voted for him might be upset over denying the nominee they picked over something he may or may not have done in 1993. Indeed, none of them seem even remotely troubled at the prospect of the party elite functionally disenfranchising its own electorate.
The point at which their argument gets around to the question of replacing the hated Biden is where the mechanics of their proposal break down completely. Replacing Kavanaugh was straightforward. He was selected by a single person. Biden was nominated by a lengthy, almost absurdly complex, and essentially democratic process.
…
Had Reade told her story several months earlier, Democratic voters might have chosen a different nominee. In the meantime, the only mechanism to pick the nominee that is either practical or legitimate is the process we had: the actual votes of Democrats, who very clearly and deliberately decided to nominate Joe Biden.
Recommended
Ah! So, basically, we can’t even entertain the idea that Joe Biden assaulted Tara Reade because it would mess with the election and ain’t nobody got time for that.
I'm actually concerned about workplace harassment, thanks for asking!
— i bless the rains down in castamere (@Chinchillazllla) May 5, 2020
And that’s not even touching on Chait’s take on Christine Blasey Ford vs. Tara Reade:
What??
"…Reade presents both less corroboration than Christine Blasey Ford (whose documentation included notes from her therapist)…"https://t.co/yCPwPAmwit pic.twitter.com/T5I1ThFmKs
— jerylbier (@JerylBier) May 5, 2020
Jeebus.
Chait's patented brand of stupidity strikes again. https://t.co/OxUeY7oYLR
— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) May 5, 2020
Amazing.
— Honest Abe (@LincolnAbe1865) May 5, 2020
it's a sickness
— Hillary Hornet (@TheLostCratez) May 5, 2020
LOL. Chaiters gonna Chait. https://t.co/Tflwv7VqpM
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) May 5, 2020
The people who shriek about gaslighting the most are usually the best at it.
— Tyler Voigt (@tvoigt34) May 5, 2020
Again, we’re in no position to know for sure whether Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden are true. But it at least seems safe to say at this point that firefighters like Chait have a vested interest in downplaying those allegations.
I am really embarrassed for the writers I respect at @NYMag who have to share a masthead with you.
— Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 5, 2020
Rewriting history is their specialty if this and those Pulitzer's are anything to go by.
— Krizzと (@konkarrne) May 5, 2020
Join the conversation as a VIP Member