The twin towers of print-media liberalism began this week with a
double-barreled volley against presidential candidate George Bush. The
unmistakable message to Dubya: Don't you dare trespass on our turf.
Don't even think about encroaching on liberalism's compassion monopoly.
The Washington Post and the New York Times unleashed lengthy "news"
articles Monday slamming Bush and seeking to undermine his position as a
compassionate conservative and reformer, respectively.
Advertisement - story continues below
Both papers warn Bush that he must be a different kind of
conservative to win the general election, yet ridicule him for trying to
hold himself out as one. They urge him to move to the center, but they
don't really mean "center." They mean "left." Otherwise they would also
tell the left-wing Gore to shift to the center. But they don't. These
same paragons of objective reporting are telling us that Gore is already
in the center, a committed disciple of New Democrat Bill Clinton.
Could it be that they are unaware of Al Gore's hysterical
mini-treatise on the environment, "Earth in the Balance," or that he
wants to make computer literacy an entitlement? Might they be ignorant
of his leftist views on taxes, spending, guns, health care, SDI,
unilateral nuclear disarmament, education, judicial appointments, Social
Security, Medicare and Democratic corruption? It's doubtful. What's more
likely is that they are so blinded by their own liberalism that they
consider leftist policies to be mainstream.
The Post article reads like a debater's flow chart with an itemized
critique of many of Bush's policies, demonstrating how they all lack
compassion. Several lines will illustrate the point. Gore "can't wait to
clobber Bush for his alleged lack of compassion on Social Security,
health care, abortion, gun control and more." "After losing badly in the
New Hampshire primary, (Bush) turned the campaign from education and
charity to an ugly brew of Confederate flags, nasty phone calls and
tough anti-abortion and anti-gay stances." "(Bush) earned more criticism
for allowing the execution of a great-grandmother who claimed domestic
abuse." "His $1.3 trillion tax cut proposal (larger than even [evil]
House Republicans could contemplate) leaves virtually no money for new
government spending." "His compassionate conservative theme was replaced
by a veneer of hard-right nastiness" (when "Pat Robertson car-jacked his
The Post is clearly implying that:
Advertisement - story continues below
- Gore's plan to raid the general revenue in perpetuity to
subsidize Social Security is more compassionate than Bush's plan to
partially privatize it -- which, incidentally, is the only hope of
"saving it" and maximizing retirement dollars for U.S. workers
- Gore's plan to incrementally nationalize and thus ruin health
care is abundantly compassionate
- Gore's militant pro-abortion stance is more compassionate than
Bush's pro-life position, the abject absurdity of which speaks for
itself, unless you truly consider babies unworthy of compassion
- Gore's hostility towards the Second Amendment is more
compassionate and respectful of life than Bush's emphasis on strict law
- Gore's career-long refusal to denounce the presence of a
Confederate flag in his native Tennessee is more compassionate than
Bush's assertion that South Carolina's Confederate flag is a state issue
- Gore's gay rights sympathies are more compassionate than Bush's
view that sexual preference should confer no special rights
- Bush lacked compassion because he refused to stay the execution
of a convicted, multi-murdering widow who only lived long enough to be a
grandmother because of the slow wheels of justice
- It is uncompassionate to return taxpayers' monies to them instead
of allowing the needy federal government to devise novel ways to spend
- Christian conservatives are extreme and nasty
So what is the Post's advice to Bush? He must "defy his
religious and corporate conservatives while making some serious
proposals to win over the poor and minorities." In other words, he must
become a morally superior liberal.
Well, that may be a perfect formula to win someone a reporting gig in
the national print or broadcast media, but it's not a Republican's
avenue to the White House.
Sadly, the Post just doesn't get it. Bush doesn't want to be a
liberal. He doesn't want to remake conservatism. He just wants a fair
hearing to make his case that conservatism is compassionate -- a hearing
the national media will never be willing to give him.