What do you call an election where the public prefers different candidates than you do? Well, if you're the New York Times, you call it "electoral retaliation."
Yes, you read that right. The Times, in yet another rant about Congressional attempts to rein in frivolous litigation, threw a tantrum a few weeks ago about a bill to protect firearm manufacturers, and they gave us this gem:
Proponents, counting on senators' raw fear of electoral retaliation if they dare to stand up on such an obvious issue of public safety, claim to be near the 60 votes needed to defeat any opposition filibuster.Isn't that a rather unusual way to say that the proposed law would be popular? And yet the Times, which is fond of describing every conservative idea as "out of the mainstream," is suddenly complaining that senators are only supporting a law because most people want them to?