A front-page Times news article on the new Republican Congress includes this passage:
Yet a sour note is possible on Tuesday as Speaker John A. Boehner seeks his third term as the House leader. Some disgruntled conservatives have said they will not back Mr. Boehner — he was embarrassed when a dozen defected two years ago — and a coup, while unlikely, would represent a disastrous beginning.
The Times doesn't explain why, in its view, the ouster of Mr. Boehner as speaker would be "disastrous." If it was the prospect of a left-winger like Elizabeth Warren ousting Harry Reid as the Democratic Party's leader in the Senate, would the Times be declaring it a disaster? It sure looks like the Times is rooting for the relative moderation of Mr. Boehner over the more conservative or more extreme or more principled (depending on how you see it) Louie Gohmert. If the Times fears that a more conservative House Speaker would sabotage the chances for bipartisan action between Congress and the White House, that's pretty funny, because the paper has spent the past four years blaming the Boehner-led House Republicans for obstructionism and gridlock.
Anyway, it's not "disastrous" if you are the one who pulls off a successful coup. But the Times just takes for granted that its readers aren't supporters of Mr. Gohmert. That may be an accurate assumption, but it's also a telling one.