LAT's Opinion Editor Praises Bush
Meanwhile, in LA a much less complementary editorial on Bush and Social Security ran in this morning's LATimes. Its tone was snotty:
But in holding the first prime-time news conference of his second term on Thursday, just shy of its 100-day mark, the president was remarkably subdued. He came across as humble even, maybe on account of his plunging approval ratings. Or maybe it was because NBC made the president of the United States defer to "The Apprentice" and change the time of the conference.Compare that to Kinsley in the WaPo:
Above all, Bush was honest and even courageous about Social Security. ... The problem is fewer and fewer workers supporting more and more retirees, and there are only two possible solutions: Someone has to pay more in, and/or someone has to take less out. ...Kinsley ends it all by blasting one more shot at the president, but all in all, he let the world know he has some admiration for the man his newspaper so regularly harpoons. Will this Michael Kinsley please come home?
Bush didn't go from explicitly denying this to explicitly admitting it. But he went from implicitly suggesting that his privatization scheme is a pain-free solution to implicitly endorsing a plan for serious benefit cuts. For a politician, that's an admirable difference.
Starting with the cliche that in America you can "worship any way you want," Bush plunged gratuitously into a declaration that "if you choose not to worship, you're equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship." How long has it been, in this preacher-spooked nation, since a politician, let alone the president, has spoken out in defense of non-believers?
(h/t Real Clear Politics)