It seems as if the battle over Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation is getting under everyone’s skin and, in some cases, putting them off their game. This may be particularly true of New Jersey Senator (and frequently mentioned presidential hopeful) Cory Booker. He was on Don Lemon’s show on CNN on Thursday, expressing his opposition to Kavanaugh, which is nothing new or surprising. But in order to make his case and prove how opposing the judge’s confirmation was a mainstream idea, he decided to cite the editorial board of the Washington Post. (The WaPo formally opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation.) The problem is that Booker appeared to be swept up in the moment and spoke a bit more truth than he probably intended. (Free Beacon, emphasis added)

Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) referred to the Washington Post as a “left-leaning newspaper” Thursday while discussing its editorial board’s opposition to the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

In an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon, Booker said Kavanaugh had demonstrated he was not acceptable because of his temperament in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He cited former liberal Justice John Paul Stevens’ opposition and the Washington Post‘s editorial calling for a “no” vote on Kavanaugh as proof that he wasn’t alone.

“The Washington Post, and granted that is a left-leaning newspaper, but they have never come out—actually since [Robert] Bork, since 1987, never came out against a Supreme Court justice, and again, it was on the temperament issue and the veracity issue,” Booker said. “Was he really telling the truth? Was he really being forthcoming? So this is not usual.”

Let’s go to the video.

I suppose we should applaud Booker for his moment of honesty, but his advisers have probably had a word with him about this already. Um, Senator? You’re not supposed to say that out loud…

It’s worth pointing out that Booker is also absolutely correct about the unusual nature of what the Washington Post did here. The last time they came out and openly opposed a Supreme Court nominee was the Robert Bork fiasco, and that was more than thirty years ago. It’s not hard to imagine the newspaper’s editors rethinking that decision in the months that followed and adopting a new, unofficial policy of not coming out against specific judicial nominees who meet all the standard requirements.

But now that’s changed. Despite the fact that a judge with such a lengthy record of service is under consideration and not one of the allegations brought against him at the eleventh hour has been credibly substantiated by a single witness, the WaPo editorial board decided to take a stand against him anyway. It’s not as if we didn’t already know that both the newsroom and the editorial board at the Washington Post act as fifth column for the Democratic Party, but don’t they still have some sort of obligation to at least try to trick us?

The newspaper’s editors can look at each of the candidates in any given race and then “coincidentally” wind up endorsing the Democrat in virtually every one. At least there’s a choice to be made there. But once a President has taken office and nominated someone to fill an opening on the court, the only remaining question should be their qualifications. If Presidents start going off the rails and nominating their friends and family members, I could easily support the newspaper taking a stand. (I’m thinking back to the nomination of Harriet Miers by George W. Bush as an example, but he thankfully pulled the nomination before it got close to a vote.) That was not the case with Brett Kavanaugh, however.

Final question. When do you think the last time was when any measurable number of voters had their minds changed by a newspaper endorsement? I’m guessing that ended pretty much with the advent of the internet.