BCT Editorial – 11/6/08

This page was last updated on November 9, 2008.

The politics of hope; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 6, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Obama must fulfill his promise to reverse politics of destruction.”

The Times officially endorsed Mr. Obama in “Common ground.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The center has held.

“In the midst of the historic election of an African-American as president of the United States, one thing must not and cannot be overlooked.

“On Tuesday, Americans decisively rejected the right-wing/left-wing politics that have been eating away at the very fiber of our nation for the last two decades, and especially the last eight years.

“Americans yearn for a uniter, not a divider. They want a president who understands the true meaning of e pluribus unum. They want a leader who grasps the importance of a multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious and multicultural America.”

[RWC] In its endorsement, the Times said, “The next president of the United States doesn’t necessarily have to be a uniter.”

Note the implication President Bush was some kind of bigot, despite the fact his cabinet was “multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious and multicultural.” Though I disagreed with his position, Mr. Bush was also in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.

“What they don’t want is a president like the one they have had for the last eight years, one who pursued a brass-knuckle partisan strategy instead of building consensus.”

[RWC] Wow, talk about a rewriting of history. Please read “President Bush” to see what I mean.

“History will tell us if Barack Obama is the kind of president he has promised to be. However, on Tuesday, he was that man.”

[RWC] “On Tuesday, he [Barack Obama] was that man?” All he did was give a speech.

“In his election night speech, the president-elect made it a point to emphasize the need to work across the political spectrum to solve the myriad of problems that our nation faces.

“‘We have never been a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America,’ Obama said. For the good of the nation, he must pursue that course.”

[RWC] All presidents-elect say this stuff.

“In his gracious concession speech, John McCain was equally conciliatory. He was McCain 2000, not the flawed 2008 version. This was the McCain Americans knew and admired. It’s good to have him back, because the nation is going to need his services as it moves ahead.”

[RWC] In case you haven’t noticed, the press likes Mr. McCain only when he’s a loser. Had Mr. McCain won in 2000, you could substitute “McCain” for “Bush” everywhere in this editorial, and in every Bush-mentioning editorial since 2000. The opinion expressed in this editorial is being expressed throughout the mainstream media and by many of Mr. McCain’s Democrat colleagues.

“The threat to the healing process comes from the left and the right.

“With luck, this election will mark the beginning of the end for right-wing populism as a dominant force in U.S. politics. They will not go quietly into that dark night. They will rage, rage against the dying of their cause on the Internet and right-wing radio and television.

“And they will be heard and heeded by fewer and fewer Americans. The face of America is changing, and right wingers — who should not be confused with true conservatives whose views are vitally important to this nation’s future — fail to recognize that. The crowds at the Obama rallies reflected the change, as did the Electoral College map.”

[RWC] Though the Times has always been careful not to tell us what policies, principles, et cetera define “right wingers,” the implication here is they are somewhere way to the right of “true conservatives.” Of course, the Times also never tells us what defines “true conservatives.” The editorial appears to imply Mr. McCain ran as a dreaded “right winger,” but that’s not what the Times said in “Political poison” when it was trying to convince Republicans. That editorial said, “McCain does have a reputation of being a maverick and for being willing to work with Democrats on legislation such as campaign finance reform, climate change, immigration and other issues. That has made him popular with moderate Republicans, independent voters and some Democrats. But at his core, McCain is a conservative.”

Here’s the problem. Mr. McCain didn’t run as a “right winger” or even as a conservative. Mr. McCain ran as the “maverick” in a stupid attempt to attract “moderates” and “independents.”

“But the left also poses a threat to Obama’s attempts to bring the country together. The danger is that they will perceive this election as a mandate for their policies. It is not. It is a rejection of the politics of the last eight years.”

[RWC] Wow, I didn’t know the Times knew there was a left! That’s because the Times always refers to lefties as “centrists,” “moderates,” et cetera. You’ll note, however, the editorial didn’t identify any lefties by name.

“Obama must reject their efforts, too, because the president represents all Americans — conservative, liberal and all points in between.”

[RWC] Did you catch the trick? By writing “Obama must reject their [the left’s] efforts,” the editorial implies Mr. Obama is not part of the left. As a reminder, over the past three years, Messrs. Obama and Biden have Americans for Democratic Action Liberal Quotients (ADA terminology, not mine) of 98% and 93%, respectively. Further, none of Obama’s supporters can name a major issue on which he bucked his leftist party leadership.

“Most Americans are neither liberal nor conservative. They have points of view across the political spectrum.”

[RWC] According to a late-October Battleground Poll (self-described as a “bi-partisan survey”), 59% of those surveyed claimed to be either “very” or “somewhat” conservative. 36% claimed to be “very” or “somewhat” liberal (poll terminology).

“The genius of the founding fathers was that they wrote a Constitution that requires compromise, accommodation and centrism, which means taking many points of view into account before acting.”

[RWC] This is BS and demeans the accomplishment of our Founding Fathers. Did the Founding Fathers do a good job putting in hurdles to make sure the Constitution could not be easily undermined by trendy amendments? Sure. That said, however, the real genius was in the principles expressed in the Constitution.

By the way, the principles that guided our Founding Fathers are now defined as “right wing populism” by the Times.

“That’s what we’ve lost under President George W. Bush and the politics of destruction and what we must regain under President Barack Obama and the politics of hope.”

[RWC] Again, please read “President Bush” in reference to the “politics of destruction” charge.

Mr. Obama asked U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) to be his White House Chief-of-Staff and Mr. Emanuel accepted. For his five+ years in the House, Mr. Emanuel has an ADA LQ of 96%. Mr. Emanuel is a very partisan “politics of destruction” political operative and was a senior advisor in the Clinton White House. When Mr. Emanuel left the White House in 2000, then-President Clinton appointed him to the Freddie Mac board of directors. Mr. Emanuel served on the Freddie Mac board until he ran for Congress in 2002. During this time, Freddie Mac fraudulently over reported its net income. For its misdeeds during this period, Freddie Mac paid two separate fines totaling $175 million. What was that about “politics of hope?” Wasn’t there also talk of “change?” I guess that’s reflected by Mr. Obama’s choice of Joe Biden (35+ years in Washington), Mr. Emanuel (former Clinton advisor), and John Podesta (former Clinton chief-of-staff) as his transition chief.

Finally, during his first news conference as President-elect, Mr. Obama slimed Nancy Reagan. When asked if he’d spoken to any Presidents for guidance, in his answer Mr. Obama said, “I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any séances.” First, though Mrs. Reagan allegedly consulted an astrologer to help set her husband’s schedule, she didn’t hold any séances; it was Hillary Clinton who allegedly communicated with Eleanor Roosevelt during a White House séance. Second, why mock Mrs. Reagan – or even Mrs. Clinton – even if it had been true? Yep, no “politics of destruction” for Mr. Obama.