The following two articles from the Christian Science Monitor - one of the country's best papers - put those noble moderates on display for their statesmanship and responsibility.
From Senate strife, a center takes hold by Gail Russell Chaddock Christian Science Monitor 05/25/05
Although it can hardly be said that a dozen centrist renegades now rule Capitol HIll, this week may have witnessed the birth of a new Senate, in which rank and file members have rising clout. The dynamic could affect everything from President Bush's agenda to the tenor of America's red-blue political divide. At the very least, it gives new impetus to centrist bids to challenge the White House and party leaders on issues ranging from Social Security and fiscal discipline to revision of federal policy on stem-cell research. ...
"This is one of those rare moments in which some legislators are able to put the national interest before ideological petty and partisan interests. It may only last a few hours," says Marshall Wittmann, a former conservative activist and aide to Sen. John McCain, now with the Democratic Leadership Council. ...
But for the 14 senators brokering the deal, attacks from outside groups are only confirmation that they are on ground worth defending. They say they expect anger from such groups, and even constituents, but trust that voters will come to see the value of restoring a vital center in the US Congress. (my emphasis)
Well, it could be the birth of a new Senate. Or it could be a patched-together deal that will come apart in just a few days. But it's "moderate." A vital center has been restored! And surely those voters will come to see the value of it the way our wise press corps does.
And, of course, this gives the press corps another chance to gush over one of their sacred icons, that "straight-talking" John McCain.
How Senate fracas may shape '08 by Linda Feldmann Christian Science Monitor 05/25/05
Among those who appear to be actively considering a run [for president], Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona emerges a winner, analysts say. Senator McCain played a significant role in crafting the compromise announced Monday evening by a bipartisan group of 14 senators. And he is no stranger to the spotlight - or the public. In the 2000 presidential race, he nearly knocked off heir-apparent George W. Bush for the GOP nomination.
The agreement on judges "certainly burnished his credentials as an independent thinker and someone who's a problem-solver," says John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron.
McCain's biggest drawback is that his shoot-from-the-hip style makes him unpopular with religious conservatives. But he opposes abortion, and could become palatable to that GOP bloc if he appeared the strongest Republican to face the Democratic nominee, analysts say. (my emphasis)
Yep, he shoots from the hip, that straight-talking John McCain. That's straight-talking McCain, who grumbled about torture at Abu Ghuraib, but doesn't seem to be raising much of a ruckus about the Army cover-ups. You know, straight-talking John McCain, who voted for Bush's war in Iraq based on lies, and can't seem to work up much outrage over administration misconduct in what is clearly one of the biggest foreign policy disasters in American history. That's straight-talking John McCain, who disapproved of the Swift Boat Liars for Bush attacking John Kerry's military service record - but then campaigned at Bush's side anyway.
Meanwhile, the ever-alert Bob Somerby is wondering why, with all the coverage and gushing about this famous deal by the "moderates," why are the major news outlets ignoring the fact that the Deal talks about five judges, when the dispute has supposedly been about seven judges: The Difference Between 7 and 5! Daily Howler 05/25/05. Somerby asks:
Meanwhile, can anyone begin to explain the nature of this ballyhooed agreement? Forget about the Unmentioned Two; can anyone [begin] to explain the status of Myers and Saad? For the past 36 hours, nothing else has been discussed—and no one has the slightest idea what the agreement means. Clearly, Owen, Brown and Pryor will get up-or-down votes; the 7 Dems have agreed not to filibuster in these three cases. But does anybody understand what has been agreed about Myers and Saad? Does anybody know how the status of Myers/Saad differs from that of Kavanaugh/Haynes?
Well, that does suggest a practical reason for having those comfortable scripts. It lets the reporters avoid having to, you know, ask hard questions. Or point out problems and/or incoherencies in "one of those rare moments" when noble moderates like straight-talking John McCain "are able to put the national interest before ideological petty and partisan interests."
I mean, if the reporters start confusing the voters with too many facts and analyses and such, the voters might fail to "come to see the value of restoring a vital center in the US Congress."
2 comments:
Well, I do think there is something to be said for moderates, moderation, and compromise in general, especially when you are involved in government. Being so polarized just seems to lead to name-calling and not much action on anything. We are such a diverse country, and even though I consider myself to be on the "left", I think that more can get done (and more attitudes will change over the long haul) if I can somehow stay engaged with the "right" through compromise and dialog.
It's true the American system is built to produce constructive compromises. And I'm at least willing to hope that the "nuclear option" agreement is one.
My real point in this post was more directed at the way the press celebrates superficial signs of "moderation" that often aren't much more than verbal posturing. And in this case, it led the press to neglect some basic reporting.
The bipartisan vote on Thursday to uphold the filibuster against John Bolton's appointment as UN Ambassodor actually looks to me like a much more hopeful and substantial instance of moderation doing something constructive than the "nuclear option" deal does. - Bruce
Post a Comment