This page was last updated on February 17, 2011.
Quick hits; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 17, 2011.
Regarding “CLOSED MOUTH, CLOSED MIND,” if you paid attention to the editorial you found something stunning. Before I get to that, though, you likely won’t be surprised to learn the editorial didn’t tell the whole story.
Before the interview excerpt cited in the editorial, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) said, “it’s not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he [Mr. Obama] was born there. That’s good enough for me. The president says he’s a Christian. I accept him at his word.” After another question by David Gregory, Mr. Boehner replied, “I just outlined the facts as I understand them. I believe that the president is a citizen. I believe the president is a Christian. I’ll take him at his word.” I think it’s pretty clear Mr. Boehner accepts Mr. Obama is a Christian, a U.S. citizen qualified to serve as President, and said so on national television. The editorial omitted that very relevant tidbit, however. I’m not a mind reader, but I suspect the author(s) figured the omission of Mr. Boehner’s stated position Mr. Obama is both a Christian and a U.S. citizen, plus the excerpt the editorial quoted, would lead readers to assume Mr. Boehner believed otherwise.
Simply because Mr. Boehner declined to be a cheerleader for President Obama regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship and religion, the Times concluded, “From that, one can only assume that Boehner would not challenge someone who said the Holocaust never happened or that black chattel slavery in the United States was a benevolent institution.” There are at least two major problems with this position.
First, apparently it’s no longer enough to accept Mr. Obama is a Christian and a citizen qualified to serve as President and say so when asked; you must be an evangelist and go forth to convert the nonbelievers. I could be mistaken, but I don’t recall the Times being an evangelist for then-President George W. Bush when lefties made absurd claims about him. For example, my records indicate Times editorials didn’t even mention Rathergate for nearly six years (and one-and-a-half years after Mr. Bush left office). Even then, the Times tried to provide cover by making it sound like Mr. Rather et al were duped.
Second, here’s the really stunning part of the editorial. Even if you didn’t have the whole story and accepted the editorial’s conclusion of “Of course, ignorance breeds bliss - and votes,” how is not being an Obama cheerleader on this topic remotely comparable to denying the Holocaust and claiming “slavery in the United States was a benevolent institution?” The editorial trivialized the Holocaust and slavery and told us a lot about the Times editorial board.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.