Post-Gazette Editorial – 12/12/06

This page was last updated on December 12, 2006.

Classy and cranky: Congress closes with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Santorum; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; December 12, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Not to kick a man when he is down and going out of public office, but U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum last week provided a telling picture of his political persona as the 109th Congress wound up its business.

[RWC] “Not to kick a man when he is down and going out of public office?” What was the recent editorial entitled “Bye, bye Bolton?” Man, the PG must believe we have short memories!

“Just as he was on Election Night in conceding to Democrat Bob Casey Jr., the Pennsylvania Republican was graciousness personified in a half-hour farewell speech on the Senate floor, praising colleagues, his family, staff members and the people of Pennsylvania.

“Although cynics may be tempted to think that this was all about leaving a lasting good impression that may presage a return to politics one day, it was also true to his character. A person doesn’t stay in Congress for 16 years (12 in the Senate) without having some sincerity and charm.

“The trouble with Mr. Santorum is that the bellicose side of his character was too often at war with his sunnier instincts. Indeed, earlier in the week, he had been up to his old extremist tricks.”

[RWC] That the PG considers Mr. Santorum to be an “extremist” says far more about the PG than it does Mr. Santorum. As I’ve written many times before, Mr. Santorum is a Rockefeller Republican and JFK-era Democrats would have been comfortable with him in their party.

“On Wednesday, the Senate confirmed Robert M. Gates as the new secretary of defense. After Donald Rumsfeld, the Senate might have confirmed a turnip, but Mr. Gates was indeed a qualified nominee and the Senate approved him by a vote of 95-2. Mr. Santorum was one of the two.”

[RWC] When I first read the editorial an image appeared in my mind. There were two versions of this editorial sitting on a shelf.

In the first version, the editorial bashed Mr. Santorum for voting against Mr. Gates as this editorial just did.

In the second version, the editorial bashed Mr. Santorum for voting for Mr. Gates in one final act of rubberstamping a nominee of President Bush.

Hmm, what does being an alleged “qualified nominee” have to do with anything? Lest we forget, current U.S. Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito were “qualified nominees” yet the PG opposed both nominations here and here. I guess that makes the PG opposition “extremist.”

Though I didn’t view the whole testimony of Mr. Gates, I was not impressed with what I heard. I got the feeling he was telling the Democrat senators what they wanted to hear. When Democrats who normally go out of their way to smear President Bush’s nominees vote unanimously to approve someone, that’s not a good sign.

“According to The New York Times, the reason was Iran in the context of the Iraq war. At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Gates had said wisely: ‘I think that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort.’ He went on to say that ‘once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable. ...’ With the awful facts about the Iraq war now before them, the American people understand the price of recklessness very well.”

[RWC] So who disagrees with that Gates quote? Military action should almost always be a last resort. I don’t know Mr. Santorum, but I suspect he would agree.

Note the editorial doesn’t list the reckless actions. While you can legitimately argue for or against the Iraq action, the record clearly shows it was not a reckless action.

“But Mr. Santorum blames Iran for contributing to Iraq’s problems and opposes diplomatic engagement that he believes Mr. Gates would favor. ‘We should confront them,’ he said.”

[RWC] U.S. forces in Iraq recently recovered weapons from terrorists in Iraq that were fresh from Iranian weapons factories. I’m sure it was an honest oversight that the editorial failed to mention this fact.

“That ‘bring-it-on’ attitude is one reason Mr. Santorum won’t be sitting in the Senate come January. The irony is that if Mr. Santorum had always been as warm and centered as in his farewell speech, he might not have had to make it.”

[RWC] Confronting your enemies is a “‘bring-it-on’ attitude?”