BCT Editorial – 4/10/08

This page was last updated on April 12, 2008.

Crisis point; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 10, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Those who are defending President Bush as an unpopular leader whose greatness will be vindicated by history are off by one president.”

[RWC] I don’t believe President Bush will be viewed as a great president, but I also don’t believe he’s the “spawn of Satan” many would like us to believe. After all, Mr. Bush is a far better president than was FDR. If you want details of why, let me know and I’ll provide the details.

“While appreciation for some presidents does grow over the years — Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower spring to mind — others have been judged by history in pretty much the same light as their contemporaries.”

[RWC] I didn’t know “appreciation” for either president grew over the years. That said, I also didn’t know either president was ever held in low regard.

“For instance, James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover are and were judged harshly for their failure in time of crisis.”

[RWC] Mr. Hoover was judged harshly for doing some of what FDR did, micromanage the economy in place of free market policies. It didn’t work for FDR either, but FDR’s “failure in time of crisis” with respect to the Great Depression was erased via World War II.

“Bush is no Truman, Eisenhower or, as some have the effrontery to suggest, Abraham Lincoln. He’s a Buchanan or a Hoover.”

[RWC] It’s true President “Bush is no Truman.” As a result of Truman’s war (intervention in a civil war or war of occupation, take your pick), nearly 37,000 servicemen lost their lives and we’ve been in Korea for nearly 60 years. At least on the casualty count, President Bush will never be a Truman.

Now, before anyone gets upset about the way I referred to the Korean War as Truman’s war, I did that to illustrate the language and metrics used in reference to Iraq.

By the way, I haven’t heard anyone suggest President Bush is an Abraham Lincoln. About all I’ve heard is comparisons to being steadfast in sticking to unpopular decisions. I noticed the editorial didn’t note a problem with the recent flurry of Obama supporters comparing him to Abraham Lincoln.

Finally, given its positions of today, I suspect the Times doesn’t actually hold President Lincoln in high regard. You can’t write some of the editorials we see and then claim to believe Mr. Lincoln was a top president.