BCT Editorial – 5/31/07

This page was last updated on June 9, 2007.

Political void; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 31, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Congressional Democrats just don’t get it.

“While the fiasco in Iraq played a major role in their party capturing the House and Senate in the November 2006 general election, the way in which Republicans were running Congress was also a major factor in the votes cast by many Americans. They were tired of the irresponsible profligacy, closed-door wheeling and dealing and misplaced spending priorities of the Republican majority.

“Democrats promised to reform the process, to do a better job and to be more accountable. It was nice while it lasted - until they got control of Congress.

“The Washington Post reports Democrats are picking up where the Republicans left off, especially when it comes to earmarks.

“When they took power, Democrats promised to halve the number of earmarks - the money lawmakers set aside for pet projects back home - and to require lawmakers to disclose their requests and to certify that the money they are requesting does not benefit them.

“Earmarks were a problem that needed to be addressed. The paper reported they went from about 3,000 in 1996 to more than 13,000 in 2006.

“‘Democrats had complained bitterly in recent years that Republicans routinely slipped multimillion-dollar pet projects into spending bills at the end of the legislative process, preventing any chance for serious public scrutiny,’ The Post reported. ‘Now Democrats are poised to do the same.’

“When asked about this shift, U.S. Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, responded by saying, ‘I don’t give a damn if people criticize me or not.’

“Obey and the Democrats don’t get it. Americans are tired of politics as usual. They want their elected leaders to govern responsibly.”

[RWC] This editorial reminds me of the battered husband who continues to be surprised each time his wife hits him. Was the Times not paying attention during the 60+ years from the 1930s to the 1990s when Democrats almost exclusively controlled Congress?

Even now, the Times can’t bring itself to tell the whole truth. As bad as they were, at least Republicans stuffed the pork into the bills before they went to conference with the Senate. Democrats are sticking the pork in as part of the conference so there can be no debate.

“What this country needs is a viable, centrist third party that would govern responsibly. It could happen. It’s becoming clearer with each passing day that the Democratic and Republican parties as they are now constituted are incapable of doing that.”

[RWC] “Centrist” (and its synonyms) is one of those nice sounding yet deceiving terms like “affordable housing,” “living wage,” “progressive,” “social justice,” et cetera intended to lure people to positions they wouldn’t support if they knew what the terms really meant.

Though a fair number of editorials lament the alleged dearth of “centrists,” I don’t recall the Times citing their defining economic, political, and social principles. I believe the closest the Times came was referring to “centrists” as “political wanderers” (“Free agents,” 12/21/06). We can infer the real meaning from other Times editorials, however.

The editorial “Road to ruin” (8/16/06) implied Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) was in “the middle.” With the sole exception of the war on terrorism, Sen. Lieberman has a voting record consistent with the most liberal members of Congress. For example, Sen. Lieberman’s 2005 Americans for Democratic Action (a “liberal lobbying organization” in its own words) voting record was 94% and he was the VP candidate in 2000. The American Conservative Union gave Sen. Lieberman a 2005 rating of 8%. Therefore, a person with a nearly 100% liberal voting record – and a near zero conservative voting record – is what the Times appears to call “the middle.”

Of course, the Times isn’t alone. During last fall’s campaign for House Majority Leader, the press labeled Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) a “moderate” despite a 2005 ADA rating of 95%. That was exactly the same as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).