BCT Editorial – 11/21/08

This page was last updated on November 22, 2008.

Good start; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 21, 2008.

The editorial subtitle is “Three events give hope that Washington’s old ways are in the past.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Americans want a government that works.

“That means the politicians in Washington must put aside partisan politics and political ideology and work together on the myriad of problems this nation faces.”

[RWC] No, you can’t “put aside … political ideology.” Ignoring ideologies and their histories prevents us from learning from the past. This, of course, is exactly what leftists want.

“If three recent events are any indication, things are off to a good start.

“First, President-elect Barack Obama has promised to appoint a Republican to his cabinet. To be of any significance, this gesture must be for a meaningful post — State, Treasury, Defense or Justice.”

[RWC] Who cares? Unless Mr. Obama can find a RINO acceptable to him, this would be incredibly stupid on Mr. Obama’s part. The purpose of political appointees is to carry out the nation’s business while advancing the President’s policies. A “real” Republican couldn’t carry out Mr. Obama’s policies because they would run counter to his principles, and appointing a RINO would rightfully be viewed as nothing more than a PR stunt.

“It would help matters immensely if Obama asks Defense Secretary William Gates to stay on to continue the changes he is making at the Pentagon, and Gates accepts the offer. Gates is the right man for the job, regardless of party affiliation.”

[RWC] You’ll note the editorial failed to note President Bush kept the Clinton administration’s CIA and FBI directors, Transportation secretary, and counterterrorism chief. Mr. Bush also appointed a Secretary of State who would eventually endorse Mr. Obama.

“Second, U.S. Sen. John McCain has pledged to work with the Obama administration and vice versa to change Washington’s ‘bad habits.’ This doesn’t mean they have to agree on everything or that McCain or Obama is selling out.”

[RWC] So what #2? Mr. McCain has a history of doing this. Mr. Obama does not, but did anyone expect him to say something different?

“Instead, they can be what Pastor Rick Warren, author of ‘The Purpose Driven Life,’ and others have characterized as co-belligerents. What this means is that significant and important differences on issues like abortion or taxes should not get in the way of reforming earmarks or implementing a national energy policy.

“Third, Senate Democrats wisely refused to retaliate against U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with their party, by stripping him of a major chairmanship for his highly visible support of McCain and his attacks on Obama during the presidential campaign.

“Obama set the tone by letting Democratic leaders know that he was not interested in punishing Lieberman. If anything, it showed that adults might finally be in charge of the Democratic Party.”

[RWC] What a crock! First, Mr. Lieberman is a registered Democrat. Mr. Lieberman simply ran as an independent in 2006. Second, it’s funny how the editorial failed to mention Democrats and Mr. Obama were concerned that if they retaliated against Mr. Lieberman he might leave their caucus and make it impossible to get their filibuster proof majority if the recounts and run-off election go in their favor. I’m sure there just wasn’t enough space. <g>

You’ll note the editorial failed to note Republicans in 2001 actually attempted to do something meaningful in the area of a “new tone.” Despite having the majority in the Senate by virtue of VP Cheney’s tie-breaking vote, Republicans opted for power sharing with Democrats. What happened several months later when a senator [James Jeffords (VT)] switched from Republican to independent and chose to caucus with Democrats? Out went the Republican majority and power sharing. Don’t get me wrong; Democrats did the smart thing. It was the idiotic Republican leadership that thought reaching out to Democrats could change things.

“Cooperation and compromise do not constitute betrayal of principles, and putting the good of the nation ahead of political and ideological purity is not a sign of weakness.”

[RWC] Again, what a crock! Sure, there are things where there can be “cooperation and compromise” without betraying principles, but those tend to be small issues. Major issues require sticking to your principles.

“Let’s hope politicians on the left and the right who do not grasp that are assigned to the dustbin of history.”