Patterico's Pontifications

1/24/2006

More Editorializing on the News Pages

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 7:20 am



A front-page article in yesterday’s L.A. Times on Bush’s healthcare proposals editorialized on the news page as follows:

Just as with Bush’s Social Security personal accounts proposal, the president would be seeking to persuade Americans to rely less on government-provided or employer-provided safety nets and more on themselves.

He would also exhibit the kind of combativeness that has become a trademark of his time in Washington.

This is a guy who famously sucked up to Ted Kennedy when he first got to Washington, only to have Kennedy later say that his administration had told “lie after lie after lie after lie.” He has vetoed nothing. He caved on a prescription drug benefit, campaign finance reform, and any number of other issues.

Now, for every example of conciliatory action or compromise that I cite, I’m sure leftists could come up with examples of “combativeness” on Bush’s part. That’s fine; there’s plenty of grist for debate on both sides.

But isn’t this a debate that belongs on the op-ed page? Why is a declaration being made on the news pages that fits a leftist view of Bush?

Don’t answer that.

9 Responses to “More Editorializing on the News Pages”

  1. “But isn’t this a debate that belongs on the op-ed page? Why is a declaration being made on the news pages that fits a leftist view of Bush”

    I know you said don’t answer that, but I’ll take that as an invitation. Look for all the “media-elite” to rachet up the cresendos of bias in the months to come.

    David Thibault, CNSNews.com Editor in Chief fired off a fine shot at the NYTs and Frank Rich this morning. >>Commentary>>>archive>>>200601>>>COM20060124a.html”>link here

    IT’S A HUM-DINGER……….

    Rov

    Rovin (b348f4)

  2. Thanks for the link, and you’re correct, it’s a fun read.

    Black Jack (d8da01)

  3. “He has vetoed nothing. He caved on a prescription drug benefit, campaign finance reform, and any number of other issues.”

    You think the medicare fiasco was a cave by republicans? Cave to who? The PhARMA and insurance lobbies?

    actus (ebc508)

  4. Boy, that actus sees EVERYTHING, doesn’t he?

    babu bhat (51058c)

  5. To nitpick a bit: the sentence you quoted didn’t say that combativeness has been a hallmark of President Bush, nor even of his administration; it said that combativeness has been a hallmark of the time President Bush has spent in Washington.

    I think this is technically true; the time during which President Bush has been in Washington has been significantly more politically combative than the time during which his father was President or the time during which President Clinton was in Washington.

    The sentence is weaselly phrased in such a way as to cause the reader to believe that President Bush is the cause of the combativeness; but it doesn’t actually say that.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  6. My guess would be they are just repeating the talking points the Administration gave them.

    Steven Donegal (a0a9b7)

  7. “You think the medicare fiasco was a cave by republicans? Cave to who? The PhARMA and insurance lobbies?”

    I think it was a cave to AARP and Democrats who pretend they might vote Republican.

    sharon (fecb65)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0737 secs.