BCT Editorial – 1/26/07

This page was last updated on January 28, 2007.

MERE WORDS: Bush’s past betrays his newfound call for bipartisan cooperation; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 26, 2007.

As you will read, this editorial is yet another attempt to rewrite history to support a political agenda.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“President Bush is now asking Democrats to drink from a well that he has spent the last six years poisoning.

“In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, the president reached out to Democrats, seeking their support for much-needed reforms on domestic issues such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, to end rampant borrowing and out-of-control federal spending and to help the nation achieve energy independence.”

[RWC] Earth to the Times. President Bush reached out to Democrats from the day he took office. For example, he kept most of the Clinton administration’s national security team intact. President Bush invited Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) to help write the No Child Left Behind Act, signed the misguided McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” bill, and the Sarbanes-Oxley bill to strengthen business financial reporting. When Democrats wanted a second vote regarding Iraq, President Bush agreed. Though he initially disagreed with the proposal, President Bush eventually supported the Democrat proposal of a Homeland Security Department. More recently, he and Democrats appear to agree on the minimum wage and “immigration reform.”

It’s pretty bad when the editorial board of a newspaper is so unaware of current events and recent history. Of course, maybe the board is aware but assumes we aren’t.

“Democrats have a right to be leery. After all, Bush has been using the very same partisan hand to slap them around for the last six years - and he would have continued to do so if Republicans had not lost control of Congress in November.”

[RWC] “[S]lap them around?” Yep, they really got slapped around on Socialist Security reform, didn’t they?

Here’s a question. In what way was the treatment of the Democrat minority different from the treatment of the Republican minority when Democrats were the majority for the vast majority of 60+ years?

“It was hard not to choke on the hypocritical opening of Bush’s speech.”

[RWC] Sorry, I’m choking – or is it laughing – right now reading about the Times writing about hypocrisy.

“‘This rite of custom brings us together at a defining hour - when decisions are hard and courage is tested. We enter the year 2007 with large endeavors underway, and others that are ours to begin. In all of this, much is asked of us. We must have the will to face difficult challenges and determined enemies - and the wisdom to face them together. ...

“‘Each of us is guided by our own convictions - and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we are all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation’s prosperity ... to spend the people’s money wisely ... to solve problems, not leave them to future generations ... to guard America against all evil, and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.

“‘We are not the first to come here with government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don’t much care which side of the aisle we sit on - as long as we are willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done. Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and help them to build a future of hope and opportunity - and this is the business before us tonight.’

“This is a man who was elected while losing the popular vote, yet who chose to rule as if he had won by a landslide.”

[RWC] Let’s recall Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote. When Bill Clinton won in 1992 with only 42.9% of the vote and in 1996 with only 49.2%, I wonder what position the Times took.

President Bush had 47.9% in 2000 (vs. Gore’s 48.4%) and 50.7% in 2004.

“This is a man who barely won a majority of the electoral votes because of a highly contested Supreme Court ruling, yet who chose to govern as if he had won an Electoral College mandate.”

[RWC] When I vote for someone, I expect him to govern as he described during his campaign regardless of the size of his victory. If you accept the editorial’s “logic,” someone who barely wins should govern as some amalgamation of himself and his opponents.

Since it appears the Times hasn’t yet gotten over the 2000 election, please read “Bush lost in 2000 – not.”

“This is from a man who spoke so eloquently in the days following the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on America, yet who had no qualms about turning it into an election wedge issue.”

[RWC] “Wedge issue” is liberalspeak for when someone disagrees with the liberal position on an issue. In the real world, all issues are wedge issues because there is no issue about which everyone agrees.

“This is a man who talked about compassionate conservatism, yet who drove home the message that different meant wrong.”

[RWC] What is the editorial talking about? When you take a position on an issue, of course you believe a different position is wrong. If you believe in a balanced budget, don’t you believe deficit spending is wrong?

In any case, what does “compassionate conservatism” (Rockefeller Republicanism) have to do with “different meant wrong?”

“And now he wants everybody to play nice. Get real.

“The truly sad aspect of what has taken place in the nation’s capital for the last six years has been the trashing of compromise, comity and moderation, three vital ingredients that are needed to nurture bipartisanship. What the United States needs in 2008 is a president who, unlike the current lame duck, understands that.”

[RWC] “[C]ompromise, comity and moderation” is liberalspeak for “capitulation, capitulation and capitulation.”

Though some of my examples are now dated, see my comments about charges of divisiveness.

Finally, let’s remember all the hateful things elected Democrats (not just fringe nuts) have said about President Bush from day 1.