A news article in the national section of this morning's New York Times reports on additional tax reductions proposed by congressional Republicans.
"The Republicans' motives seemed to include giving some fresh meat to their conservative supporters, putting pressure on the Senate not to cave in to pressure from moderates, forcing Democrats into casting difficult votes and maybe even allowing President Bush to appear to be taking a middle ground," The Times reports.
It would be refreshing if, rather than speculating about the Republicans' motives -- while citing no evidence for such speculation -- the Times actually reported on the details of their policy proposals and the various reactions to them. When a newspaper has to hedge by not only writing "seemed" but also writing "maybe," it seems like maybe it would strike an editor somewhere that the news being merchandised under this "seemed. . .maybe" construction is kind of thin.
In addition, consider the breathtaking cynicism. In enumerating these possible motives for the Republican actions, the Times doesn't even list as a possibility the idea that the Republicans might actually be motivated by a principled belief that government is too large and that taxpayers deserve to keep more of their own money.
The "seemed" construction resurfaces later in this article, as the Times writes: "The Republican leaders estimated that their plan would cost $2.2 trillion over 10 years, well above the $1.6 trillion that Mr. Bush has said was his maximum, and the leaders' projection seemed to be on the low side."
As one astute Smartertimes.com reader asked in an email this morning, "Seemed on the low side to whom? A left-wing economist? A prominent left-wing Wall Street figure? Tom Daschle? Not even. Just to The Times."
The cynicism also resurfaces later in the article, with the Times writing, "The initiative by the conservative Republican lawmakers was one of several political maneuvers today in which lawmakers from various wings of each party were angling for political advantage." It's just odd the way the Times interprets every move as "angling for political advantage" rather than "representing constituents" or "advancing principles." Beyond the cynicism, it's just obvious. Does anyone in Washington ever angle for political disadvantage?