BCT Editorial – 11/10/06

This page was last updated on November 11, 2006.

Angry electorate; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 10, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Neither party should feel comfortable regarding Tuesday’s election results

“Democrats are on probation for the next two years.

“What they received from the voters on Tuesday was not a mandate. Instead, they benefited from voter anger directed against President Bush, the Republican-controlled Congress and the war in Iraq. In key race after key race, people didn’t vote for Democrats. They voted against Republicans.”

[RWC] Hmm, that’s not what today’s other editorial asserted about the Santorum/Casey race. Perhaps the Times needs to hire a consistency checker. It’s tough to keep track of these things when you make up stuff as you go. <g>

That above notwithstanding, I agree with the paragraph.

“Republicans were put on notice on Tuesday.

“The American people showed they were fed up with the way Republicans conducted themselves and ran Congress and the executive branch over the last six years and voted accordingly. They showed they were tired of congressional Republicans ignoring their problems while kowtowing to the Bush White House.”

[RWC] The Times should check its history. Republicans “controlled” Congress for only four years. In 2001, though the split in the Senate was 50/50 and, with the Vice President’s (President of the Senate) vote, Republicans should have been the majority, Senate Republicans agreed to a power-sharing scheme with Democrats. They were rewarded for their high ideals when Sen. Jeffords (VT) decided to change from Republican to Independent in May 2001. With a 50 to 49 majority, Democrats took control and decided power sharing wasn’t such a high ideal after all. Republicans didn’t regain the Senate majority until the 2002 election.

“[K]owtowing to the Bush White House” means helping the President advance the platform we the people elected him to advance. As I note below, the Times believes Congress should have effectively nullified the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004.

“Tuesday’s results did change the way Washington will operate for the next two years. Democrats will have a solid majority in the House and could, depending on the outcome of the race in Virginia, control the Senate.”

[RWC] Is 52% a “solid majority?”

When does the Times “put the paper to bed?” Sen. Allen announced his concession during mid-afternoon on Thursday, the day before this editorial appeared.

“If congressional Democrats are wise, always a dubious proposition, they won’t be intoxicated by Tuesday’s results. They must understand that they owe their multiple election victories to independents, moderates, disgruntled Republicans and Reagan Democrats. A purely liberal agenda will get them nowhere but back in the minority come 2008.”

[RWC] This is a hoot! Nearly every position taken by Times editorials for at least the last several years reflects a “purely liberal agenda.” Of course, the Times wants us to believe a “purely liberal agenda” is the new “center.” That positioning allows editorials to label as “extreme” or “out of the mainstream” anything reflecting conservatism.

“If nothing else, Democrats must use their power to end the subservience of the House and the Senate to the executive branch and re-establish a balance of power that has been woefully absent these last six years.

“In doing so, they must walk a fine line between oversight and revenge. If they opt for the latter, they will be no better than the people they displaced.”

[RWC] In case you haven’t been paying attention for the last six years, “balance of power” and “oversight” are code words for opposing everything President Bush wanted to do the Times didn’t like. I could be wrong, but I’d be surprised if the Times ever used the word “subservient” when Democrat controlled Congresses supported Democrat presidents.

When a Republican is president, the Times appears to forget we the people elected him to do what he said he would do during his campaign. What the Times wanted was Congress to nullify the presidential elections by opposing President Bush’s platform.

“Democrats also must focus on restoring a degree of civility and decency to the way in which Congress works. Right now, politics and ideology have rendered the legislative process virtually unworkable.”

[RWC] The way this is written, we’re to believe Democrats had no role in the current situation. I cover this in more detail at the end of the critique.

“In the House, it means turning the other cheek and adopting rules and regulations that don’t punish the minority party. It means being fair and aboveboard in legislative matters so that all sides of an issue are heard.”

[RWC] Elections have consequences. The idea of “minority rights” the Democrats whined about when they were the minority is hogwash. Short of illegal and/or unethical behavior, the majority should get its way.

“If the Democrats gain control of the Senate, it means reaching out to principled Republicans like Arlen Specter, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner to work for the common good.”

[RWC] Note, the way you become a “principled Republican” is to be a RINO or to oppose Republican Party positions on a regular basis.

“Most important of all, it means putting the people’s interests before those of the special interests and lobbyists. It means curtailing the explosion of pork-barrel projects that had taken place in the last decade and controlling deficit spending. It means understanding the importance of compromise and moderation to the legislative process.”

[RWC] I could be mistaken, but I believe the editorial meant to say, “curtailing the explosion of pork-barrel projects” not headed for the Times circulation area. Other than the disingenuous partisan opposition to the Medicare prescription drug plan, when have you read a Times editorial complain about a specific program?

“These changes are needed because Tuesday’s election returns showed that American voters are disgusted with politics as usual in the nation’s capital. Democrats have a chance to change that. If they don’t, the voters will let them know about it come 2008.”

[RWC] If you lived on another planet for the last six years and then read this editorial, you would believe Republicans were a bunch of mean people and Democrats did their best to get along. When you check history, however, you find the story is a tad different.

From the day George Bush was certified as the President, Democrats have been on a ceaseless assault and nothing could be done to accommodate them short of giving them everything they wanted. As I noted above, Republicans started off with power sharing in the Senate.

Here are more examples of how gracious Democrats were.

· After President Bush took office, Democrats did everything they could to stall the confirmation of his appointments. This was despite the fact President Bush kept on a bunch of Bill Clinton’s people, like CIA Director George Tenet, counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, FBI Director Louis Freeh, Sec. of Transportation Norman Mineta, et cetera.

· Speaking before school students, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) referred to President Bush as a “loser.” Sadly, this was one of the less offensive examples of name-calling. Go here and here for more examples.

· Referring to the Bush administration, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said, “These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I’ve ever seen.”

· Senate Democrats manipulated the judge approval process to affect the outcome of a pending Michigan case. Despite a “smoking gun” letter as proof, those mean Republicans didn’t pursue the matter.

· Senate Democrats outlined a strategy to use pre-war intelligence for political purposes. Again, despite a “smoking gun” letter as proof, those mean Republicans didn’t pursue the matter.

· Senate Democrats referred to President Bush’s judicial nominations as “Islamic jihadists,” “Nazis,” and “Neanderthals.”

· During the confirmation process for Justice Alito, the smears got so bad his wife left in the middle of one hearing in tears.

· Not content with merely smearing nominees, Democrats threatened to filibuster every nomination they didn’t like. Rather than smack them down, those mean Republicans let Democrats get away with this tactic.

Regarding judges, here’s my prediction. Any hope of getting a conservative majority on the Supreme Court is lost until the next time we have a vacancy when we have both a Republican president and a Republican majority in the Senate. While history indicates a Democrat president doesn’t need a Democrat majority in the Senate to get a liberal judge confirmed, recent history indicates Democrats believe they have a duty to filibuster a Republican president’s conservative nominees. This means conservative nominees need a supermajority (60 votes) just to get out of committee and to receive a vote by the full Senate. That clearly can’t happen with a Democrat majority and is unlikely even with a Republican majority. In case you’re interested, the last time Republicans held 60 seats in the Senate was 1911.

Now that they have the majority, with rare exception will Democrats will allow confirmation of judges to the right of Justice Ginsburg (the most liberal justice on the Court) and certainly not on appellate courts or the Supreme Court. This isn’t new and started with the nomination of Robert Bork by President Reagan in 1987. Sadly, Judge Bork’s legacy will be to be known for the character assassination campaign Democrats used to block his confirmation, “Borking.” Democrats attempted to Bork Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, but just barely failed. Of the 48 “no” votes, 46 were by Democrats. I have little doubt that if Justice Thomas had been white, the Borking would have succeeded.

By the time of the Roberts (confirmed 78-22) and Alito (58-42) nominations in 2005, Republicans were finally ready for the Borking tactic. Of course, that didn’t stop Democrats from trying. Ultimately, the only reason Justices Alito and Roberts were confirmed was because of the Republican majority.

Consider that to date Republicans have not Borked liberal nominees. In 1993, even though she was known as a “hair on fire liberal” at the time of her nomination, Justice Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3 and in 1994 the liberal Justice Steven Breyer was confirmed 87-9.

I have a final observation. Did you notice the difference between how losing Republicans behaved in 2006 vs. how losing Democrats behaved in 2000, 2002, and 2004? Democrats forced seemingly endless recounts and to this day claim they were cheated. Even this year, Democrats claim Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., (D-TN) lost because of racism. Strangely, neither Democrats nor Republicans made that claim when Republicans Ken Blackwell (candidate for Ohio governor), Lynn Swann (candidate for PA governor), and Michael Steele (candidate for U.S. senator from Maryland) did not win.