Inhospitability At The Washington Post

I know, I know. It’s not a word. But it seems apt, given this assertion by WaPo reporter Dan Balz in his article today that could have been (but wasn’t) entitled “Bush Panders To Cubans.”

Bush has been working to elevate social issues in the presidential race, focusing attention on a more hospitable subject than the economy and the Iraq war, two favorite themes of Democratic opponent John F. Kerry.

“Hospitable subject”? How can a subject be hospitable? Balz obviously means something akin to “friendly territory,” and I guess since his meaning is clear, or clear enough, it would be petty to spend too much time on a stylistic complaint.

More important, however, there’s a serious substantive problem with this at best awkward construction. Who says the economy and the Iraq war are not “hospitable subjects” for the Bush campaign? Certainly not the Bush campaign, which has shown no unease or discomfort in claiming credit for recent but dramatic economic growth. Nor has Bush acted as though he regards his record regarding Iraq as something to be avoided in the campaign.

And as for Kerry, does Balz really maintain that Iraq and the economy are “two favorite themes” of Kerry’s? What, in fact, does “theme” mean here?

Presumably Balz’s piece was read by a different editor from the editor who read Amy Goldstein’s article, also in today’s paper. In Ms. Goldestein’s version of hospitable and inhospitable themes, the war against terrorism, presumably including Iraq, is “one of the central selling points of the Bush campaign.” Indeed, in describing a Michigan campaign rally attended by Sen. McCain and Vice President Cheney, Ms. Goldstein writes that “Cheney’s remarks before cheering crowds in Lansing and, later in Waterloo, Iowa, touched on the campaign’s themes, national security and the economy.”

When can we expect the Post’s political writers to get their themes straight?

ADDENDUM [7/17/04 10:20PM]

Although Ms. Goldstein was better on the themes than Dan Balz, she too appears to have let her predilections distort her analysis. Consider her description of Sen.McCain’s position on gay marriage:

This week, McCain broke with the administration again on an issue of great symbolic importance to Bush’s conservative base: whether same-sex marriages should be legal. The Arizonan was one of six GOP senators who voted against a proposed constitutional amendment aggressively supported by Bush that would have prohibited such marriages. McCain called the measure “antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans” because it interfered with states’ rights.

On the contrary, to the best of my knowledge Sen. McCain has never said that same-sex marriages should be legal. He supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Clinton, that said that under federal law marriage could refer only to a relationship between a man and a woman, a position he re-iterated in opposing the recent proposed amendment that would have banned gay marriage:

“While Senator McCain believes marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, he opposes tampering with the Constitution and wants this issue to be resolved by the states,” spokesman Marshall Wittman said from Washington.

While gay-rights activists welcomed McCain’s stance on the vote, they said they wished he supported same-sex marriages.

“As long as he votes no, I don’t really care why at the moment,” said Kathie Gummere, a gay-rights activist who lobbies the Arizona Legislature. “Of course our long-term goal is full equality.”

A prominent social conservative expressed disappointment.

“You’d think he’d be somewhat concerned about what people in Arizona think on an issue like this. It doesn’t seem like he is,” said Len Munsil, president of the Center for Arizona Policy.

You’d also think a Washington Post reporter would know that opposing amendment that would ban gay marriage does not mean that one thinks gay marriage should be legal.

Say What? (2)

  1. Laura July 17, 2004 at 6:17 pm | | Reply

    “Congenial”?

  2. harm d. July 18, 2004 at 7:20 am | | Reply

    i’m afraid you’re being too kind, john. the person who wrote this article is not only swaying whichever way her ideological sympathies direct her but is also, apparently, oblivious to one of the most elementary aspects of how the senate actually works.

    no, mccain did not “vote[…] against a proposed constitutional amendment aggressively supported by Bush,” that is flat out false. he may or may not have intended to so if he would’ve had the chance to, but that is rather irrelevant in face of the fact that on 07/17/04, senator john mccain, (r) of arizona, voted against putting that constitutional amendment to vote in the senate.

    …& so it came to pass that even folks @ the wapo no longer bother to know & report what cloture is…

Say What?