BCT Editorial – 10/27/04

This page was last updated on October 27, 2004.

One nation; Editorial; Beaver County Times; October 27, 2004.

The Times officially endorses John Kerry for President in this editorial. The Times unofficial endorsement has been visible in previous editorials and opinion columns disguised as news articles.

“No matter who is elected president on Tuesday, and no matter which party controls the House and Senate, America is in trouble because the nation is being ripped apart by extremists - homegrown ones.

“All one needs to do is to take a look at this year’s campaigns. American politics has always been a blood sport, but this year it’s been a bloodbath.

“America is not like that, no matter what the extremists on the left and the right would have us believe.”

[RWC] The Times would have us believe both Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the “bloodbath.” The editorial board wants us to forget the Democrat crusade against President Bush began during the 2000 campaign and has never let up. Mainstream Democrat leadership – including John Kerry himself – has called President Bush a coward, crooked, a deserter, a fascist, a Hitler clone, incompetent, a liar, a moron, a Nazi, a racist, and on and on. These people even took shots at family members because family members were “fair game.” Show me where mainstream Republican leadership resorted to similar name-calling.

“One reason for the extremism is congressional gerrymandering. Sure, this tactic has been part of American politics from the beginning, but technology has made it possible to use it to corrupt our representative democracy. Voters today don’t choose their representatives so much as the representatives chose their constituents.

“The influence of special interests and their money has further distorted the process by making incumbents virtually unbeatable. Lawmakers can accumulate so much money for their campaigns that it intimidates possible opponents. (The Washington Post reports the average amount House candidates need to spend to win an election has reached $1 million.)”

[RWC] See the web site dictionary for a brief discussion of special interest groups.

“But the real danger these factors pose toward our representative democracy is that they help bring out the extremes in both parties. Because legislative and congressional districts are drawn so exactly, winning the dominant party’s primary election is tantamount to victory in November. That’s one reason conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans are an endangered species.

[RWC] “Moderate Republican” is liberalspeak for RINO, a Republican in name only. Contrary to the Times opinion, there are far more RINOs in office than conservative Republicans. The liberals have moved so far to the left, a 1950s era Democrat looks like a “right winger” to liberals.

“As a result of gerrymandering, candidates cater to party activists, those who vote in primaries. These are the true believers, hardliners who are less likely to tolerate those who deviate from the party line.

“The result is all too evident - a dysfunctional government where ideology and special interests drive the agenda.

[RWC] Was the Times so concerned about this issue when Democrats controlled most state legislatures and thus controlled most gerrymandering?

“This has led to a breakdown in the ability to achieve consensus, something that is absolutely critical for our system of government to function properly. Consensus means being able to say, ‘I can live with that.’ That’s what has been lost in the all-or-nothing politics of today.”

[RWC] By “consensus,” the editorial means it longs for the day when Democrats held such a stranglehold on Congress that Republicans could be ignored.

“The time has come to bring American politics back to the middle, to have leaders who strive to achieve a consensus that unites us as a people, not politicians who strive to maintain power by dividing us.”

[RWC] You can read this sentence to say, “The time has come to restore a Democrat super majority in Congress and the presidency so liberals can choose our future.” Remember, even though John Kerry’s voting record is more liberal than Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Democrats and their supporters in the old media – like the Times – want us to believe Kerry is in the middle, whatever that means. These are the same people who wanted us to believe Howard Dean was a “moderate.”

“We believe the first step toward ending this divide is to elect U.S. Sen. John Kerry as president.”

[RWC] I’d like to see an explanation of how the most liberal senator – and his nearly equally liberal running mate – is a “first step toward ending this divide.” In the Times’ world, a moderate Republican like President Bush is an extremist but the most liberal member of the Senate is a moderate.

“We also believe Kerry has the diplomatic skills to rebuild alliances with key allies such as France and Germany to fight the international war against terrorism. We believe that Kerry’s election would allow the United States to make a new start in Iraq. We believe that Kerry, who has a reputation as a deficit hawk, will rein in the runaway spending of the profligate Republicans, who most likely will continue to control Congress.”

[RWC] Kerry has diplomatic skills? Are those the skills he used when he called our allies in Iraq a “trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted?” Does anyone care to guess how the “bribed and coerced” would respond to John Kerry if he were elected? Kerry also trashed Iraq PM Allawi when he visited the United States to thank us on behalf of the Iraqi people. It appears the Times would trade true allies like Australia, England, Italy, Poland, and 40+ other countries for fair weather “friends” like France and Germany.

That Kerry is a “deficit hawk” was news to me. When I searched the web, I found the only person to call Kerry a deficit hawk was Kerry himself. In one case, Kerry said he should be considered a deficit hawk because he once supported a 50¢/gallon gasoline tax increase.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume Kerry is a deficit hawk. How would Kerry deal with the deficit? Among other things, Kerry wants socialized healthcare, an enormously expensive program. To the best of my knowledge, the only cost cutting consistently favored by Kerry was for intelligence and the military. I agree the Republicans are spending too much, but the spending remains lower than what Democrats wanted. Kerry in office is not a vote for reduced spending; a vote for Kerry is a vote for higher taxes.

“Most important of all, we believe that Kerry will govern, not rule.

“We also endorse U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter over U.S. Rep, Joe Hoeffel, a moderate Democrat. Specter is a moderate Republican whose presence within the GOP caucus is absolutely essential if politics is to return to the middle. Specter has shown he can work with Democrats and Republicans, a rare commodity in today’s Washington where opponents are often vilified.”

[RWC] At best, Specter is a conservative Democrat running as a Republican. For confirmation, all you need to do is look at his voting record and who supports his re-election.

“Consensus, compromise, accommodation: These are not dirty words that depict weakness when it comes to governing. They are strengths that have made America great.”

[RWC] I thought standing up for what was right made America great. Apparently the Times believes appeasement made America great.

This is just another version of the “President Bush is divisive” myth.

“If the election results reflect the polls, neither Bush nor Kerry will emerge with a mandate from the voters. Do we want a president who recognizes that and governs accordingly, or do we want a politician who uses the power of that office to force his ideology down the throats of half the nation?”

[RWC] John Kerry has said he would not nominate any judges who may rule against abortion. Isn’t that forcing “ideology down the throats of [more than] half the nation?”

Regarding the mandate comment, here’s a prediction. Regardless of how small the margin of victory, if Kerry wins the Times will come up with a reason to claim Kerry has a “mandate.” If President Bush wins, no margin will be large enough for him to have a “mandate.” Indeed, the primary reason for the preemptive election lawsuits by Democrats is to provide a foundation for claiming President Bush is not a “legitimate” president should President Bush win.

“Bush has answered that question by pushing American politics to the extremes. It’s time to give Kerry - and Specter - a chance to bring it back to the middle where it belongs.”

[RWC] Did you notice the Times didn’t describe what it considers to be extreme and moderate? As most liberals, the Times editorial board is afraid to tell you what they really stand for.