New York Times reporter Patrick Healy's lead story in the Week in Review, "An Exclusive Club Gets Included," posed the question: Why, after a long spell of senators trying and failing to win high office, are two senators now in line for the presidency? Healy's short answer: It's all Bush's fault, for his "go-it-alone strategy in Iraq" and his "with-us-or-against-us presidency."
The Times is quite fond of the "go-it-alone" myth, having cited it several times. For the record, the United States actually led a 30-nation coalition in Iraq (35 countries joined the fight in Afghanistan).
Healy harked back to the wisdom of Sen. John Kerry:
John McCain or Barack Obama would be only the third president in history to go directly from the Senate to the White House. And, perhaps not coincidentally, both men face an electorate that seems more open to Senate-style compromise and negotiation, defying conventional wisdom in modern politics.
Maybe what John Kerry -- one in a long line of failed senators-cum-nominees -- called the "stubbornness" and "rigidity" of the Bush administration has changed all that. The alienation of allies; the go-it-alone strategy in Iraq; and the lack of immigration reform and a new energy policy; the rise in gas prices and health care costs have left many Americans in a dyspeptic mood. And with all the problems in the world, polls show there is a desire for a candidate with more foreign policy experience than a typical governor has.
Given the costs of a with-us-or-against-us presidency that achieved relatively little on Capitol Hill, maybe voters think a split-the-difference senator isn't such a bad idea. In a New York Times/CBS poll in February, 72 percent of Republican primary voters said they wanted a Republican president to compromise with Democrats to "get more things done," while 14 percent wanted a president to stick to the party's positions. Democratic primary voters lined up in a similar way behind a Democratic president.
Then Healy fights for one more round against the "rigidity" of the Bush administration:
Beyond the nominees' skill sets, their reputations for flexible thinking and their abilities to adjust to new conditions and changing facts may come as a relief after the ideological rigidity of the current Bush administration, not to mention decades of partisan Washington bickering under Democratic and Republican presidents.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What it all means
July 29, 2008 - 13:54 ET by nkviking75Bush is no more rigid than the Democrats, who have blocked lots of judges and lots of Bush proposals during the President's tenure. They've made "bipartisanship" mean "Republicans caving in".
As for the "go it alone" business, Bush has been very clear that he wants to work with Democrats on legislation and the world on fighting terror. In this instance, "going it alone" is refusing to be governed by what Democrats or the UN think. Dems think they have a veto power on the President.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Go it alone?
July 29, 2008 - 14:05 ET by c5thenIs that why we refer to the forces in Iraq as "Coalition Forces" and the operations in Afghanistan are under the NATO auspices?
You want to "split the difference" with Al Qaeda?
How about the Democrats "split the difference" on the Drilling Bill and allow off-shore drilling but keep the moratorium on ANWR? (or vice versa)
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Well, Bush did do a lot of tough talking
July 29, 2008 - 14:33 ET by jefflebowskiright after 9/11 but has let a lot slide at the end of his presidency. I thought for sure he would take care of Iran a few years ago when it was found that they were killing our soldiers. We owe that bunch and have a score to settle that goes back to 1979.
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
The NYT finds these
July 29, 2008 - 14:38 ET by Chris NormanThe NYT finds these coalitions to be so much more "consensusy", when it's the Democrats doing the arranging.
McNotObama '08
def. consensus
July 29, 2008 - 15:56 ET by allanfdef. consensus (con -sen-sus). The majority opinion, e.g. the Democratic Party opinion.
the NYT sure knows how to
July 29, 2008 - 20:46 ET by TruthMongerthe NYT sure knows how to build relations with other countries - by ignoring the contributions of their soldiers to the WOT coalition - cool!
Darfur Example
July 29, 2008 - 14:35 ET by socal4patrickDarfur will go down in history as the perfect example of "diplomacy". I know it's not an "official" UN genocide. But the almost 1 million that have been savagely murdered so far would gladly overlook the definition. While good liberals debate what to do and back very strongly worded reprimands, people die miserably.
"If you want to save the world you must be willing to make others sacrifice" ....Dogbert the green consultant to AlGore
You can feel Healy's sour
July 29, 2008 - 15:14 ET by rammingspeedYou can feel Healy's sour stomach as he's forced to write an article like this - one that even suggests that McCain may have a chance in November. As far as rigidity, our most recent Democratic president never compromised with Republicans. He was forced to sign some bills because of the Republican majority in the house and senate in the 90's, but there was never a spirit of cooperation. And vetoing the ANWAR drilling bill in '95 is coming home to roost for Dems, whether they can see it or admit it, or not.
What a Joke
July 29, 2008 - 17:11 ET by kilrodWhat a Joke: [And with all the problems in the world, polls show there is a desire for a candidate with more foreign policy experience than a typical governor has.] So a dumb jr. senator with less than a term in office and a recent week long foreign trip is the kind of experience we need, what a joke.!! patrick healy gets my vote for the "stupid is as stupid says" award of the week.
(GRINS) kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
With us or against us
July 29, 2008 - 17:42 ET by ConservativeRexWith us or against us policy, as opposed to here's the keys to the city come bomb us policy of the NYT.
And, perhaps not
July 29, 2008 - 17:49 ET by MidAmericaAnd, perhaps not coincidentally, both men face an electorate that seems more open to Senate-style compromise and negotiation, defying conventional wisdom in modern politics.
Hmmm..... the responsibilities of being President does not always include the option of compromise. If an enemy intends to kill our people do we compromise and let them kill some but not all? and afterwards should we be pleased with ourselves because we 'resolved' our conflict with an opponant by negotiation?
Takes One to Know One
July 29, 2008 - 18:30 ET by Kirk TurnerTakes one to know one, eh? Let's see, "stubborness and rigidity," you mean the kind of stubborness and rigidity that causes a paper to maintain its rigid, passe worldview, thereby relentlessly running itself into the ground regardless of the appeals of legions of readers? The kind of stubborness and rigidity that leads a paper to stubbornly reveal national security secrets against the interests of the country? Or perhaps the kind of rigidity that proclaims any left-wing tin pot dictator a genius? The strain of stubborness and rigidity that funnels "objective opinion" without fail to the opposite view of conservatives?
If anyone knows subbornness and rigidity, it is the New York Times.
NYT = Not Yet Truthful
July 29, 2008 - 19:27 ET by wdhorning45 countries joined us in the beginning. Hardly going-it-alone! Oh, I see, according to the NYT we should have had Iran, N Korea the PLO and Hamas join us against Saddam, then we would not have had to "go-it-alone" because we would have had their support.
Definitions
July 29, 2008 - 20:59 ET by cocodrieRepublicans - rigid and in lock-step, - Democrats united and in agreement
"Rigid" is leftiespeak for
July 29, 2008 - 23:38 ET by robert108"Rigid" is leftiespeak for "having principles and following them."
Our system is designed to produce so-called "partisan bickering", it's there to keep govt from running our lives. The less they do, the better.