Today's editorial has two howlers, so amazing that they left me wondering whether the editorial writers read their own newspaper.
Even the Obama administration, which has been reluctant to second-guess its predecessor in the White House, is recognizing that serious questions about past anti-terror policies cannot be ignored.
Until now, all the generic excuses and talking points have been employed by Democrats and Republicans alike.
(Emphasis added.)
Did the editorial writers notice when Obama went on his apology tours? This president is the least reluctant to "second-guess" his predecessors, especially his immediate predecessor, that I have seen in my lifetime. (Perhaps ever, though you would have to know more about some of the 19th century presidents than I do to be certain.)
In the war on terror — which we are now supposed to call something else — Obama has adopted some of the more sensible Bush policies, without admitting that, and simultaneously blamed the Bush administration endlessly. If you are like me, you can admire the political dexterity in that combination, while being appalled by its intellectual dishonesty.
Actually, Democrats, in an effort to protect our failed Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, have been raising these issues for weeks — with the help, naturally, of the New York Times, and other "mainstream" news organizations. Republicans have mostly laughed at their efforts so far, though many worry, as I do (and as some of the more responsible Democrats do) that this will handicap us in the war on terror. Or, to be more blunt, will get Americans, and others, most of them moderate Muslims, killed.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(You can read the entire editorial if you want, but, if you do, I would suggest that you prepare for it by reading this Andrew McCarthy article first.)
Note to commenters: Please stay on topic and keep your comments civil. In particular, avoid personal insults to other commenters.
In this post, the topic is those two statements in the Seattle Times. Is Obama reluctant to "second-guess" his predecessor? Have Republicans and Democrats behaved alike on this issue?
Posted by Jim Miller at July 14, 2009 02:59 PM | Email ThisYes
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 14, 2009 07:07 PMLook at Guantanamo. He issued an executive order stating the prison will be closed (placates his base), Congress refuses to fund, and no action is taken, or probably will be taken. The ongoing drawdown in Iraq was negotiated by the Bush team. Policy in Afghanistan is largely what you would imagine any Republican would have pursued.
My biggest complaint about him is the spending, which, we all know is also a doubling down of Bush policies.
Honestly, if I didn't know better, I'd say this was Bush's third term. Only this time, conservatives have license to get vocal about policies that secretly angered them for the first eight years.
Posted by: AD on July 15, 2009 12:15 AMStrategically and tactically Republican candidates continue to be ineffective, and the results are increasing Democratic majorities.
That special election replaced another Democrat, so they didn't expand any majority.
And the Democrat only scored 62% of the vote in a district that is 75%-80% Democratic.
Posted by: Karen on July 15, 2009 08:57 AMThey must have heard all the boos he got yesterday at the All-Star Game when he threw that namby-pamby pitch.
Posted by: Dave on July 15, 2009 09:00 AMHey Mike, you may want to read the story in your own link before gloating.
From the article:
Democrats hold a 2-1 registration edge in the district, and the [Democrat] party has held the seat for decades.
As for the Times and the rest of the fourth estate in this country, journalism as it should be is dead and has been for some time. Gone are the Eward R. Murrow's replaced by the Jayson Blair's in newsrooms nationwide.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 15, 2009 09:10 AMI don't concede any district based upon voter registration, else I'd be accepting minority status for Republicans forever.
At some point Republicans need to be able to effectively contest in a special election regardless of registration disadvantages and the party of the former member.
Behaving like Democrats either in policy substance or political strategy & tactics has been an loser, and continues to be a loser for Republicans.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 15, 2009 09:21 AMPhil Williams trounced a Democrat winning in House District 6, which means the Republicans picked up a seat there.
Posted by: Karen on July 15, 2009 09:35 AMRight, Mike. If anything, the Republican party should learn from that erroneous thinking during the time of Republican control of the House, Senate and WH. Fortunately (or rather unfortunately for the American people), Obama spending policies are Bush's on steroids and will usher in yet another wave of Republicans in 2010. Uncontrolled and unsustainable fiscal spending by the Democrats will almost certainly have them on the outside looking in next 2 election cycles if history is any indicator.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 15, 2009 09:53 AMIf so, then I guess the Obamessiah has not second-guessed his predecessor...
Right.
Posted by: yaddacubed on July 15, 2009 09:53 AMIt was befitting of both Washington's at this stage under this stooge.
Posted by: GS on July 15, 2009 10:31 AMTo anyone who saw the Obama pitching footage on youtube: I'ts official. Obama is NOT cool.
Posted by: Michele on July 15, 2009 02:06 PMJim, I think Obama has diverged from Bush more substantially on some issues than others. Clearly Bush never tried to tackle health care, where it is Obama's first legislative priority past the stimulus.
However, on foreign policy/terror there has not been significant divergence. We've had one executive order about GITMO and a troop increase in Afghanistan (which he ran on -- Michele must have not been paying attention during the election).
In terms of language, however, Obama has been very willing to diverge from his predecessor. You almost imply this to be a bad thing. We must judge the quality of his predecessor, not just the fact that his predecessor proceeded him.
And, well, Bush was terrible. Which is why Obama won a campaign on a message of change. I would prefer more change on issues such as gay rights and don't ask, don't tell, but on Iraq and GITMO? Well, minor tweaks and advancements are all that's needed now. The fact is that Bush took too long to recognize his errors in these areas, and McCain suffered a lot of the consequences.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 15, 2009 04:57 PM...and when American's wake up to realize his policies will leave them with only lint and small change in their pockets, they'll send him packing (ala Jimmy "the nut" Carter) in 2012 back to the chicago cesspool from which he came.
Thanks for the tip on the "mom jeans" CNN story, michele. That was quite entertaining and also shows a different angle on the pitch/shotput attempt by the oval office Erkel.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 16, 2009 05:37 AMI have the feeling he could close this thread down anytime.
Maybe if a conservative says something edgy or controversial that is not quite "nice" enough.
Here lets test . . .
Bush was a good President, Bush was a good President. . .
