BCT Editorial – 12/6/06

This page was last updated on December 11, 2006.

Dual roles; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 6, 2006.

As you will read, this editorial is yet another in a series to provide cover for poor behavior by Democrats.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“U.S. Sen. James Webb didn’t take long to create a stir in the nation’s capital.

“At a White House reception early last month, the recently elected conservative Democrat from Virginia either (a.) insulted President Bush or (b.) told it like it was regarding the war in Iraq.”

[RWC] “[C]onservative Democrat?” What a load of hooey! Even the blogs of Democrat Underground and DailyKos are getting a kick out of this misrepresentation. To quote one liberal blogger, “If Jim Webb is a ‘conservative Democrat’ we need more of ‘em.” Another lib blogger wrote, “I’d prefer a whole Congress of them [reps like Mr. Webb].”

Remember this the next time you read a Times editorial talking about so-called “conservative Democrats,” moderates, centrists, et cetera. I covered this in more detail in my critique of “Center solution.”

“According to The Washington Post, Bush walked up to Webb to ask about his son, a Marine serving in Iraq. Webb responded by saying, ‘I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President.’

“‘That’s not what I asked you,’ Bush replied. ‘How’s your boy?’

“‘That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,’ Webb responded.

“So, was it an unmerited insult or a well-deserved rebuke? It largely depends on which presidential role one sees Bush playing.”

[RWC] It wasn’t an insult, but it was rude. Though a staunch enemy of President Bush, even the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette conceded “Mr. Bush was asking a friendly question about the welfare of Mr. Webb’s son, a fair and decent inquiry. It would have been better had the senator-elect not attended the reception than behave like this.”

“One problem with the way the presidency is set up under the Constitution is that chief executive is both the political leader of government and the head of state.”

[RWC] Why is that a problem?

“So when someone criticizes a president for his political decisions, he and his supporters invariably wrap themselves in the flag by emphasizing his role as the head of state.

“In effect, they are saying that criticism of a president, especially on national security and defense issues, is unpatriotic.”

[RWC] This is another load of hooey.

Most people don’t have a problem with “criticism of a president” and, as a rule, don’t consider criticism “unpatriotic.” What people do have a problem with is how the criticism is presented and the forum. It’s one thing to engage in thoughtful debate of a president’s policies. It’s quite another to engage in name-calling and personal attacks. Apparently the Times believes name-calling and personal attacks count as legitimate criticism.

“Many democracies separate the roles. England has a political prime minister leading the government and a hereditary monarch as the head of state. When Prime Minister Tony Blair is criticized, it is in his role of the leader of the Labor Party and the government and not as the visible symbol of the nation.”

[RWC] Is the author serious?

“This separation of roles does not exist in the United States, as the Webb-Bush run-in illustrates perfectly.”

[RWC] So, to which person is being rude OK, PM Blair or Queen Elizabeth?

“Was Webb right? Most likely, it depends on one’s politics.”

[RWC] No, good behavior does not “depend on one’s politics.” Even if you were raised poorly and don’t understand manners, the PG’s aforementioned rejection of Mr. Webb’s behavior is evidence.

Now that we’ve seen the Times try to provide cover for an ill-behaved Democrat, let’s go back to a couple of recent relevant editorials.

In “Civil tongue,” the editorial led off with, “We hope that one result of last Tuesday’s election results is that politicians, political operatives and commentators in the media learn to keep a civil tongue.” Apparently the editorial’s hope only applied to non-liberal “politicians, political operatives and commentators.”

In “‘Trust, but verify’,” after it quoted President Bush as saying, “The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences,” the editorial said, “Long overdue. This comes from a man who has spent the last six years dividing the nation …” Who’s “dividing the nation?”

Finally, did you note the behavior the editorial didn’t recognize? As a good host, President Bush sought out one of his guests whom he knew to be an opponent (Mr. Webb) and asked a thoughtful question about his son. Further, despite Mr. Webb’s boorish behavior, President Bush did not retaliate in kind. Does anyone care to guess how this editorial would have read if President Bush had responded rudely to Mr. Webb’s rudeness?