BCT Editorial – 11/12/06

This page was last updated on November 12, 2006.

‘Trust, but verify’; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 12, 2006.

What a load of hooey!

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“President Bush must show that he will work with Democratic Congress

[RWC] “Democrat Congress” would be more accurate. As a side note, the takeover wasn’t exactly the landslide the press likes to call it. In the Senate, there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and two independents. What gives Democrats the “majority” is the two independents (Joe Lieberman from Connecticut and a Vermont Socialist) will join the Democrat caucus. One Democrat party switcher would give Republicans the majority because the Vice President (President of the Senate) votes in the case of a tie.

In the House, with 229 seats, Democrats have only 53% of the seats.

“On the day after his party’s Election Day debacle, President Bush held a press conference addressing what had happened and what course he planned to chart over the next two years.

“‘I told my party’s leaders that it is now our duty to put the elections behind us and work together with the Democrats and independents on the great issues facing this country,’ he said.

“Nice words. Where were they after the 2000 presidential election in which he did not win the popular vote and barely won the Electoral College vote? That did not stop him from governing as if he had a mandate from the voters.”

[RWC] I guess that’s why 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.

I wonder if there was a similar editorial when Bill Clinton won in 1992 with less than half the popular vote yet governed “as if he had a mandate from the voters.”

As I wrote in another critique, election results matter. Regardless by how much or how little, winners need to act like winners. That doesn’t include running on one platform and then governing as your opposition would have.

One last point on the “mandate” thing. The Times appears to forget voters reelected President Bush. Apparently he did have a “mandate.”

Using the editorial’s logic for President Bush, I guess Democrats don’t have a mandate in the Senate because they hold less than half the seats.

“‘I believe that the leaders of both political parties must try to work through our differences. And I believe we will be able to work through differences,’ he said.

“Fine sentiments. Where were they following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America when Bush, chief political strategist Karl Rove and the GOP Congress drove a wedge between the two parties for electoral gains in the 2002 congressional races?”

[RWC] Note the editorial doesn’t describe how “the GOP Congress drove a wedge between the two parties for electoral gains in the 2002 congressional races.”

The editorial also ignores the fact it was not a “GOP Congress.” Democrats controlled the Senate from late-May 2001 until late-January 2003. Oops.

While we’re talking about wedges, what was it when Democrats campaigned on the idea Republicans don’t want sick people to get better? What was it when Georgia Democrats aired a commercial claiming electing a Republican would be worse than the “dogs and fire hoses” blacks faced in the 1960s? Of course, the ad failed to note it was Democrats who handled those “dogs and fire hoses.”

“‘I’ve reassured the House and Senate leaders that I intend to work with the new Congress in a bipartisan way to address issues confronting this country. I invited them to come to the White House in the coming days to discuss the important work remaining this year and to begin conversations about the agenda for next year.’

“Noble ideals. Where were they when Bush and his henchmen were impugning the patriotism of those who dared to differ with his ‘you’re either for us or against us’ White House?”

[RWC] Hmm, I guess the Times doesn’t count things like the No Child Left Behind Act, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, and the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance bill. President Bush invited Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) to help write the NCLBA and the other two bills were bipartisan efforts cosponsored by Democrats and Republicans.

All three of these bills passed when Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001 and 2002.

“[I]mpugning the patriotism?” While this didn’t happen, it’s amazing the same people who accused President Bush of being a draft dodger, a deserter, AWOL, et cetera regarding his Texas Air National Guard service would have the nerve to complain.

Regarding the “you’re either for us or against us” comment, the editorial paraphrased something President Bush said during a news conference in November 2001. President Bush said, “I have no specific nation in mind, at least as I stand here now. Everybody ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. But over time, it’s going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror.” It had nothing to do with political opponents.

Even in politics, though, isn’t it true? Unless you’re an unthinking lump, if you aren’t for conservatism, liberalism, et cetera, aren’t you against it?

“‘The message yesterday was clear: The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work together to address the challenges facing our nation,’ he said.

“Long overdue. This comes from a man who has spent the last six years dividing the nation for his and his party’s gain, watching his party disgrace Congress with its unethical behavior and ruining the nation with its fiscal profligacy.”

[RWC] “[D]ividing the nation?” Not exactly.

I wish someone would explain how allegedly “dividing the nation” helps any politician. This is akin to the idea leading the country into a war can be for political gain. Does the Times expect us to believe the country was of one mind on issues until President Bush came along? Perhaps the editorial authors need a little diversity in their news sources.

It should be noted that some of the positions outlets like the Times find divisive are being implemented by citizens at the state and local levels. Examples include increased opposition to abortion, opposition to so-called same-sex marriage, and enforcement of immigration laws.

“Being the consummate politician that he is (and not much else), Bush was playing to the public on Wednesday. He knows that the American people are fed up with Washington and the way it operates.”

[RWC] “[N]ot much else?” Geez, talk about tacky.

Remember all the vile things Democrats – including Democrat leadership – said about President Bush on a regular basis? Things like loser, chicken hawk, deserter, drug addict, draft dodger, incompetent, and on and on. We never heard President Bush engage in name-calling. The issue with most Democrats/liberals is, they consider criticism of their positions to be personal attacks. For example, when people opposed Sen. Kerry’s 2004 campaign-time position on Iraq, those people were accused of questioning Kerry’s patriotism.

“For the good of the country, Bush and the Democrat-controlled House and Senate must work together for the next two years.

“However, Democrats and the American people must not be chumps. This president and this administration have a nasty habit of saying one thing and doing another when they think no one is looking. That’s why there’s no reason to assume that the president will follow through on what he said. He’s going to have to show us by his deeds.”

[RWC] Hmm, on more than one occasion Democrats told us they were angry because President Bush actually attempted to do what he said he wanted to do during his campaigns. Regarding Iraq, Sen. Kerry once said he voted for the Iraq War Resolution because he didn’t believe President Bush would act on it.

“[W]hen no one is looking?” What Republican would ever believe “no one is looking?” Heck, in 2004 we learned the press will resort to forged documents to try and tear down a Republican president.

“Keep your guard up. As President Reagan said in regard to nuclear disarmament with the Soviet Union, ‘Trust, but verify.’”

[RWC] Note how the editorial placed the full burden on President Bush. What this means is, unless President Bush sells out conservative principles on every issue, the Times will blame President Bush if nothing beneficial gets done. The sad thing is, on many issues, President Bush is more in tune with Democrats than he is with conservatives. Big government and immigration are just two examples.