...continued from page 1
Sunday's lead editorial was downright silly. It noted that McCrory will be the first Republican governor in 20 years, but failed to note that it will be the first time in over 120 years that the Republicans will control not only the governor's mansion, but the General Assembly and the Supreme Court as well. This will be far different from the administration of the last Republican governor, Jim Martin, where the legislature did everything it could to restrict the power of the governor.
But what makes the editorial so silly is that appointing 1,000 Republicans to state jobs is not going to change anything. Because the overwhelming majority of state employees are Democrats. Sure, you have a few hardheads who work for the state government who are Republicans, but if you go to Dallas you can find a Redskins fan.
The Democrats have been packing the state government with their cronies for over 100 years and the News & Record has the audacity to complain about 1,000 Republican appointees. It should be 10,000 or 20,000. The state has over 135,000 employees. The N&R is complaining because after over 100 years of being locked out the Republicans are going to take less than 1 percent of the jobs. The Democrats in this state have had everything for so long that they can't even see that there is another side to the story.
There are Republicans who have been locked out of jobs for years simply because of their political party. Is it going to harm anyone for people looking for jobs in state government to suddenly have doors open for them because they are Republicans?
People should not get jobs because of their political party, but for over 100 years in North Carolina the Democrats have run state government like their own employment agency. Now to complain because the Republicans are taking a measly 1,000 jobs would be beneath most newspapers. But, alas, it isn't beneath ours.
, , ,
Words, when used well, are so powerful. I was reading in The New York Times about the relationship between Speaker of the House John Boehner and President Obama. It had the phrase that after Obama's first two years in office when Republicans "seized" control of the House that Obama had not been able to get anything done.
But it was the word "seized" that caught my eye. The Republicans seized control. Seized from whom? From the Democrats, of course, who rightfully should be in control of the House.
Seize, the first definition is "to grasp suddenly and forcibly: take or grab." And then down at definition five we find "confiscate."
What the Republicans actually did was win control of the House in free and fair elections. The control of the House wasn't seized from anyone. It wasn't confiscated. It was given to the Republicans, not "confiscated" from the Democrats. In a long article it is not a remarkable word choice, except that it is so common that it is apparently how many (or, judging from the last election, most) Americans think of Republicans.
Word choices like that in article after article in newspaper and magazine after newspaper and magazine all written and edited by liberals, put Republicans at a huge disadvantage. Even when Republicans manage to get their message out, it is often obscured by the language of those telling the story.