The Editorial LiveJournalists cranked it up today with two editorials that seemed not to be in an ideal state.
As is frequently the case when they rant against Chron “bad guy” John Culberson, the Editorial LiveJournalists got so worked up that they sort of missed what should have been a fairly easy mark:
“I strenuously disagree with the way [Johnson] expanded the size, power and cost of the federal government,” Culberson said. “I just don’t think he’s a good role model for young people.”
Culberson added that he didn’t have a lot of respect for the nation’s 35th president.
By dismissing such a complex political figure — who strode large across history’s stage and left a legacy of civil rights and opportunity for all — Culberson reveals his uncertain grasp of American history during the 20th century, and of the role that a great Texan played in it.
His uncertain grasp of American history during the 20th century? Do the Editorial LiveJournalists really mean to deny the bolded part of Culberson’s assertion above? If so, they are the ones displaying an uncertain grasp of American history.
They continue with this non-sequitur:
The last balanced federal budget before President Bill Clinton’s tenure in the White House was the one LBJ submitted for fiscal 1969, with outlays of $118 billion. What must Culberson think of the current occupant of the White House, who has expanded the federal budget by 27 percent, to $2.3 trillion, and more than doubled the national debt, to $8 trillion?
From bashing Culberson to bashing President Bush — sometimes it seems hard for the Editorial LiveJournalists to stay on topic.
As we noted on Monday, it was Culberson’s pledge of support (reported by Samantha Levine on Saturday, November 12) for the legislation and subsequent reversal that was unseemly (and not his characterization of LBJ’s role in expanding the size and scope of the federal government, which is accurate and unassailable). That it took the Chronicle Editorial LiveJournalists nearly a week to come up with an opinion on this topic — and one that missed so badly — is sad.
Then again, maybe they should take MORE time for composition and proofing, if today’s other editorial is any indication:
With the administration’s initial justification for the invasion of Iraq invalidated, it is only a matter of time before Congress’ patience with the extended deployment of U.S. troops in Iraq expires. Just as it approved U.S. military action in Iraq, the House and Senate have the right to curtail it.
Presumably, the Editorial Livejournalists are referring to the WMD rationale that a previous administration (not to mention other world intelligence agencies) thought was true. While that was the major rationale offered for war, it is worth noting that additional reasons were offered. As for the second bolded portion — the House and Senate are two different bodies, and therefore are not an “it” (although Congress could have been used there, and referred to as an “it”). In any case, Congress doesn’t have rights, but power or authority.
The reference to the Left’s latest “hawkish” hero Rep. Jack Murtha was entirely expected:
Murtha is a Vietnam veteran, a respected advocate for the nation’s armed services and an expert on military affairs. His decision to sponsor a resolution calling for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq is an indication that mainstream support for the war, in Washington and outside the capital, is fading fast.
Glenn Reynolds noted that Murtha said the same thing a year and a half ago, but it wasn’t front-page news or editorial fodder. Interestingly, Sen. John McCain’s notion that the U.S. should inject more troops has been relegated to back pages (for the record, I happen personally to disagree with both).
Then there’s the conclusion:
Forestalling that outcome is not a goal worthy of the continuing sacrifice of the lives of U.S. soldiers and and billions of dollars that could be better spent on Americans’ needs.
Somebody really needs to start reading these things before they go to print.