Wow, it's not even November, and New York Times is in full frothing at the mouth mode

Check out today's New York Times editorial, calling Newt Gingrich a lying racist.  I'm sorry, it's one of those things where I understand the individual words and sentences, but not the meaning of anything they are trying to say.

...Mr. Gingrich has made racial resentment an integral part of his platform...presenting African-Americans with the great revelation that they should prefer paychecks to federal handouts. 

Is "great revelation" praise, or sarcasm?  If it is meant as praise, the section is self-contradictory, because where is the racial resentment?  And, if is it sarcasm (as I suspect), it means that the editorial writers are seriously proposing that federal handouts are preferable to paychecks.  In conclusion, this section literally makes no sense.

Newt blames Obama for putting lots of people on food stamps (SNAP).  Now, one could legitimately argue that it was Bush's policies, globalization, and/or the financial crisis that really caused this, not Obama.  But, to my great surprise, the NYT does not blame Bush or Wall Street for this,  Instead, they quibble.

The fact is that Mr. Obama has “put” no one on food stamps. People apply for food assistance...because they’re poor or out of work...

Puhleese.  Presidents get praised or blamed for job creation, inflation, whatever all the time.  Even if they have little to do with it.  Imagine the following argument in an editorial:  "Obama/Bush has not 'put' anybody on unemployment.  People apply for unemployment when they get fired..."  I can't.

The NYT editorial goes to great pains to mention that whites far outnumber blacks receiving SNAP benefits.  Duh!  Whites far outnumber blacks in total.  The relevant number is percentage, which the NYT does not provide.  In any case, why is this relevant?  As quoted by the NYT, Newt said "The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president...".

The editorial continues

But these are inconvenient details to Mr. Gingrich, who implied that the rise in federal aid was a sad indication of the insufficient work ethic of black Americans.

None of the quotes attributed to Newt in the editorial even mention black Americans.  Even if the NYT Editorial Board now includes Matt Parkman from the Heroes TV series and can read Newt's mind and knows that he is a racist, it is factually incorrect, based upon the quotes presented, to write that Newt said or implied that black Americans have a poor work ethic.  He did nothing of the sort.

Newt then proposes that poor children (not "black children") be employed in jobs such as school janitors.  He cites his daughter doing so and benefiting from the experience.  The editorial responds:

Don’t try to follow any kind of logical thread of why the president wouldn’t want the jobless rate to decrease...

Don't try to follow any kind of logical thread in the editorial, because children don't count in the jobless rate!  But this kind of talk from Newt is "divisive".

For the record, I'm not a big Newt fan.  But this editorial is absurd in its criticisms, which are not supported by a single iota of evidence.

Oh yeah, check out the comments, which are even more wildly hostile and hateful.  I'm just going to mention the first two I saw.  MJR calls the Republican Presidential Debate a "KKK rally".  And has 35 "thumbs up" votes.  Julieanne Wozniak says "Newt is rich white trash...Newt is an odious, possibly narcissistic excuse for a human being, a waste of breathable air."  And earns 43 thumbs up.

Enjoy November.  It's going to be an incredibly hostile and bitter campaign.