Hypocrisy from the News & Record? Surely, you jest!

DavenportThe News & Record editorialized today in opposition to naming a federal building in honor of a political icon. The editors oppose the honor, in part, because the individual in question is “a polarizing figure”; his supporters may not be aware of the “full scope” of his “legacy.”

What is it about the icon that is objectionable? Among other factors, he is known for “hard-fought, polarizing election campaigns characterized by heavy spending for negative TV ads.” Furthermore, his electoral victories “weren’t landslides. The electorate was divided, each time tilting a little in his favor.

“A referendum on giving him this honor,” the editors continue, “might produce as much heat and noise as one of his campaigns. Putting his name on a building where people of all races and political views conduct daily business will leave some distinctly uncomfortable. The ‘simple honor’ will dredge up complex feelings among many.”

In closing, the editors write that the individual in question is a “polarizing figure” whose name “should not go on a federal building.”

All of the arguments above could be applied to President Barack Obama, but they never will be, at least not by the editorial board of the News & Record. The editors are troubled not by these arguments, but by the fact that the potential honoree is a conservative: former Senator Jesse Helms.


Shall we anticipate similar editorials in a few years, in opposition to schools, highways, and bridges being named in honor of the liberal icon, Barack Hussein Obama?

Don’t hold your breath.

Charles Davenport Jr.

3 Responses to Hypocrisy from the News & Record? Surely, you jest!

  1. Brenda frizzell says:

    How many buildings..etc were named after Robert Byrd ..former klu klux clan member…in WV?

  2. sal leone says:

    If they needed a name and felt the need to name it after someone in politics then why not after the last great President of this generation, Carter was well, can’t say much, Clinton well he was ok but shady. I say go with Reagan.

  3. William H. Edwards says:

    This editorial provides yet another example of why stopped my subscription to that rag many years ago. Perhaps the Rev. Jesse Jackson would be a more, let us say…suitable, choice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 82 other followers

%d bloggers like this: