Is there a law somewhere that says that the Plain Dealer has to describe Voinovich as some sort of Republican "moderate" on Iraq, even though it is obvious he is not such thing? Time and time again the PD tells us that Voinovich is searching for a different policy in Iraq than Bush's even though it is simply not true.
The latest example is a Plain Dealer editorial that appeared on Sunday, November 25, 2007. The editorial included this gem:
You might think that Democratic leaders, having already fallen hard on this path this year, would look to form an alliance with Republicans - including Ohioans Steve LaTourette in the House and George Voinovich in the Senate - who want a new course in Iraq.
Here's a question for the stupid editorial writer who wrote the above: When has George Voinovich proposed a new course for Iraq that is substantially different than George Bush's? Voinovich has supported the President on every vote that has been held this year. He refuses to come out in support of any kind of deadline for the withdrawal of American troops. He supported the so-called "surge." So just what is this new course that Voinovich and LaTourette supposedly want?
Look, we have long known that the Plain Dealer carries good old George's water. They did it when he was Cuyahoga County Auditor, when he was Cleveland's Mayor, when he was Governor, and now they are still carrying it when he is a Senator. Instead of insulting the intelligence of their readers by making up stuff, why doesn't PD's editorial staff just come out and admit the obvious: No matter what the facts are, they support whatever Voinovich does.