Such aggressively disingenuous nonsense can only have an impact because a) one of the country’s premier papers decides that yes, absolutely, this needs to be published and thereby the aura of a serious, respectable position that should be taken into account…
And b) it falls on fertile ground with a mainstream audience that has been primed to accept *anything* that presents itself under the “both sides” banner as an important, reasonable intervention.
“Are you saying a major paper should censor one of our political leaders?” Stop it. McConnell has his own platform to get whatever message across to the people. But if a piece lacks any serious argument and is solely intended to muddy the waters, why lend it legitimacy in any way?