BCT Editorial – 8/17/10

Rather than rely on the editorial’s paraphrasing of Mr. Gibbs’ comment, here’s the relevant excerpt from the original The Hill article.

“‘I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush.  Those people ought to be drug tested,’ Gibbs said.  ‘I mean, it’s crazy.’

“The press secretary dismissed the ‘professional left’ in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, ‘They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon.  That’s not reality.’

“Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: ‘They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.’”

The editorial says, “But Gibbs was making a point about governance in the United States.”  No, Mr. Gibbs wasn’t.  Mr. Gibbs was simply whining that the “professional left” wasn’t giving the Obama administration and Congress adequate “credit” for all the progressive policies/programs implemented.  You’ll note Mr. Gibbs didn’t say President Obama didn’t have the same goals as the “professional left,” just that the “professional left” wasn’t happy with the “progress” toward those goals.

The following three paragraphs are a hoot.

“Liberal and conservative ideologues’ unwillingness to compromise, their refusal to moderate their views, their failure to grasp the basic essentials of governance has resulted in gridlock of ever-growing proportions.

“Controlling deficit spending and reducing the national debt illustrate this perfectly.  Cutting into the massive amount of red ink our nation has piled up over the last three decades is going to require a combination of spending discipline and revenue increases.

“Yet liberals won't abide reduced spending, especially in social programs and entitlements, while conservatives won't even discuss tax increases.”

These three paragraphs describe the Times to a T, yet speak of “liberals” (aka “progressives”) in the third person as if the Times itself isn’t part of the “professional left.”

Finally, did you note the editorial referred to “liberals” and not “progressives,” the “new” (but over 100 years old) nom du jour of lefties now that everyone understands what “liberal” really means?  With apologies to William Shakespeare, a skunk by any other name still stinks.