BCT Editorial – 2/23/05

This page was last updated on February 26, 2005.

Fool’s gold; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 23, 2005.

I don’t know if the Times is serious in this editorial, but I assume it is given the amount of print space dedicated.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Talk about party loyalty.”

[RWC] Talk about a lack of originality. The article to which this editorial refers led off with, “Now this is party loyalty.”¹

“The Washington Post reports a recent poll found that 62 percent of Republicans said they would vote for President George W. Bush while only 28 percent said they would support George Washington.”

[RWC] This is one of those “no win” situations for Republicans and President Bush. When they say they would vote for George W. Bush over George Washington, Republicans are cast as hopeless partisans as in this editorial. If they had done the reverse, we’d see headlines similar to “Republicans dump Bush in favor of Washington,” or “Republicans prefer president dead over 200 years to George W. Bush.”

“It’s not so much the exaltation of Bush but the denigration of Washington that is so baffling. When it comes to greatest presidents, it’s a neck and neck race between Washington and Abraham Lincoln. (Heck, when it comes to greatest Americans, Washington and Lincoln are right at the top.)”

[RWC] I’m not about to compare President Bush and George Washington. I agree with the editorial that title of “Greatest President” is probably a tie between Washington and Lincoln. That said, I believe the editorial displays the partisanship of the Times when it refers to a comparison of Presidents Bush and Washington as denigrating to Washington.

“Fortunately, Democrats and independents recognize greatness. Because of their support, Washington would win a hypothetical race against Bush by 19 points.”

[RWC] In case you missed it, the editorial opines that Democrats who voted against President Bush “recognize[d] greatness” but Republicans who voted for him displayed “party loyalty.” Heaven forbid that Democrats who voted for Washington did so solely because they dislike President Bush.

“Americans’ lack of historical perspective popped up in another poll cited by the Post. In a poll that asked those surveyed who the greatest president was, 20 percent cited Ronald Reagan and 15 percent plucked for Bill Clinton. At 14 percent, Lincoln came in third while Washington tied with Bush at 5 percent.

“Washington and Lincoln are the gold standard when it comes to measuring presidents. It’s simply amazing how many Americans can’t tell the difference between fool’s gold and the real thing.”

[RWC] Did the editorial just claim Bill Clinton is “fool’s gold?” Oops, some poor Times editorial writer is likely in trouble. <g>

Will history eventually consider George W. Bush a “great” president? I don’t know. After all, he has four more years to serve. I believe it’s fair to say, however, regardless of President Bush’s accomplishments by the end of his administration, the Times will consider him “fool’s gold.”

1. George Wins Time-Travel Race in a Blur; Dana Milbank; The Washington Post; February 19, 2005.