I Never Thought I’d Say These Words…
…but I agree with Gail Collins (I know, editorials are unsigned…blah, blah, blah…when it’s a New York Times editorial, you can sign it with Gail’s name). Or should I say Gail Collins agrees with me? Whatever…the point is, lo and behold, the New York Times has its verdict on Bush’s speech, and (drum roll)….it’s a thumbs up!
Shocking, no? Yet here it is:
President Bush said three things last night that desperately needed to be said. He forthrightly acknowledged his responsibility for the egregious mishandling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. He spoke clearly and candidly about race and poverty. And finally, he was clear about what would be needed to bring back the Gulf Coast and said the federal government would have to lead and pay for that effort.
Once again, as he did after 9/11, Mr. Bush has responded to disaster with disconcerting uncertainty, then risen to the occasion later. Once again, he has delivered a speech that will reassure many Americans that he understands the enormity of the event and the demands of leadership to come.
…Last night, the president was particularly strong when discussing the nation’s shocking lack of preparedness for disaster, and the stark fact – obvious to every television viewer around the globe – that the people left homeless and endangered by Katrina were in the main poor and black.
The entire nation, he said, saw the poverty that “has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America.” Polls show that black Americans are far angrier and more skeptical than whites about the administration’s actions since the storm. Mr. Bush’s words could begin a much-needed healing process. But that will happen only if they are followed by deeds that are as principled, disciplined and ambitious as Mr. Bush’s speech.
Oh, sure, it’s the Times, so there’s plenty of carping…but given the deep-seated antipathy of the Times towards Bush, I’d call this a rave review…
Well, the idiotic responses to the speech are already piling up.
A.P. ace “Nedra Pickler” (an anagram for “A.P. Dreckliner”) is reporting from Pascagoula, Mississippi that John Kerry (D-MA) had this bit of insight:
“Leadership isn’t a speech or a toll-free number. No American doubts that New Orleans will rise again. They doubt the competence and commitment of this administration.”
Sen. Kerry was also quick to reiterate that he’d “actually” voted for the Iraq war before he voted against it. Just in case anyone was still unclear on that point.
Hey, is that the same haughty French-looking Senator who by the way served in Vietnam?…
“But that will happen only if they are followed by deeds that are as principled, disciplined and ambitious as Mr. Bush’s speech.”
In boxing, that’s called telegraphing your punches.
Shall we start a pool on how long it takes before the Times editorial board is declaring that the actual federal relief efforts are “not living up to President Bush’s soaring rhetoric and sweeping promises. Yet again this administration’s speechwriters have made noble promises in the style of F.D.R. and J.F.K. that this administration’s policy wing has never had any intention to follow through on…” Message: Bush Lied!
Well, it was a good speech, and I don’t think it’s especially surprising that the Times would acknowledge that. I believe they also strongly supported Bush’s speech to Congress following 9/11.
I also think the reaction of the left to Judge Roberts was much different from what some on the right predicted — i.e., no Borking. He should get tough but fair questioning, and for the most part I think that is how the hearings went.
I don’t think there is deep-seated antipathy by the Times towards Bush — I think they call them as they see them, and most of what they see they view unfavorably.
peter, I’m about to put up a post that may challenge your faith in the ‘call ‘em as they see ‘em’ Times; I’ll be interested in your response (it’s about Paul Krugman’s refusal to correct misinformation, even though the Times’ public editor has called him out.)
Thanks Mark — I’m not qualified to comment, as I’ve never been to the NY Times website — I get the paper edition, which prints the Ombudsman column on Sundays, and I usually skip it — obviously it is unacceptable if there is something in a Krugman column which is demonstrably wrong and left uncorrected —
Knowing your dislike of the Times, I’m curious about one thing: what do you think about their sports section?
peter, of course you’re qualified to comment, most of the content is the same…I like the sports section, and truth be told, I like the whole paper – EXCEPT the editorial page. There’s something satisfying about getting a Sunday Times and sitting down for a leisurely read, no doubt…I’m so tough on ‘em because they really are such a fine paper in so many respects that it’s a shame they have such laughable columnists…
Geez, I would say the same thing about the Wall Street Journal…
Haha, the true divide between a liberal and a conservative, right? Respective opinions on WSJ vs. NYT…
Yep — but at least the Times has a crossword puzzle…