A few days ago, I
noted that the New York Times editorial board was beginning to sound like a slightly-restrained version of Keith Olbermann. Today, they go a little bit further towards full-on shrilldom:
Today's
editorial is entitled "The Difference Two Years Made", and it goes beyond attacking George Bush to indicting the entire Republican party for the abuses and excesses of the last several years:
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.
No Republicans. A clean sweep. No Connecticut moderates who are nice and polite, but act as enablers for the extremist GOP leadership.
Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition -- and even the more moderate members of their own party -- out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.
The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.
"burned-out, braindead status". Are we
sure that this is the New York Times, and not Countdown? By the standards of the language normally used by the Times, this is the equivalent of somebody foaming at the mouth. A Kossack could have written those paragraphs, though we probably would have added a healthy dose of profanity (and have probably written it three or four years ago, but better late than never).
The Times does acknowledge the "a few years late" thing in the next paragraph, but thought that there were still a few "good Republicans". Not any more, though:
For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans' attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president's ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don't need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.
I really have nothing to add to this paragraph. Well, OK one thing: Right now, the Supreme Court is the only thing vaguely resembling a restraint on the Administration. Stay healthy, Justice Stevens, stay healthy.
There's a long (though incomplete) list of the abuses of power that this administration, and this Congress, have pushed through, and the editorial ends with:
This election is indeed about George W. Bush -- and the Congressional majority's insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.
(emphasis added)
Unlike the editorial a few days ago, which pulled its punches in the last sentence, this one goes out with a bang.
-dms