WHEN THE WASHINGTON POST SLAMS BUSH, IT IS SENDING A CLEAR MESSAGE ABOUT GORE'S LEFTIST INTENTIONS

The Washington Post and The New York Times unleashed lengthy "news" articles Monday slamming George Bush and seeking to undermine his positions as a compassionate conservative and as a reformer, respectively.

Both papers warn Bush that he must be a different kind of conservative to win the general election, yet ridicule him for trying to hold himself out as one. They urge him to move to the center, but they don't really mean "center." They mean "left." Otherwise they would also tell Al Gore to shift to the center. But they don't. These same paragons of objective reporting are telling us that Gore is already in the center, a committed disciple of New Democrat Bill Clinton.

The Post article reads like a debater's flow chart with an itemized critique of many of Bush's policies, demonstrating how they all lack compassion. Several lines will illustrate the point:

Gore "can't wait to clobber Bush for his alleged lack of compassion on Social Security, health care, abortion, gun control and more." "After losing badly in the New Hampshire primary, (Bush) turned the campaign from education and charity to an ugly brew of Confederate flags, nasty phone calls and tough anti-abortion and anti-gay stances." "(Bush) earned more criticism for allowing the execution of a great-grandmother who claimed domestic abuse." "His $1.3 trillion tax-cut proposal (larger than even House Republicans could contemplate) leaves virtually no money for new government spending."

The Post is clearly implying: Gore's plan to raid the general revenue in perpetuity to subsidize Social Security is more compassionate than Bush's plan to partially privatize it -- which, incidentally, is the only hope of saving it and maximizing retirement dollars for U.S. workers. Gore's plan to incrementally nationalize and thus ruin health care is abundantly compassionate. Gore's militant pro-abortion stance is more compassionate than Bush's pro-life position, the abject absurdity of which speaks for itself, unless you truly consider babies unworthy of compassion. Gore's hostility towards the Second Amendment is more compassionate and respectful of life than Bush's emphasis on strict law enforcement. Gore's career-long refusal to denounce the presence of a Confederate flag in his native Tennessee is more compassionate than Bush's assertion that South Carolina's Confederate flag is a state issue. Gore's Gay Rights sympathies are more compassionate than Bush's view that sexual preference should confer no special rights. Bush lacked compassion because he refused to stay the execution of a convicted, multiple-murdering widow who only lived long enough to be a grandmother because of the slow wheels of justice. It is uncompassionate to return taxpayers' money to them instead of allowing the needy federal government to devise novel ways to spend them. And Christian conservatives are extreme and nasty.

So what is the Post's advice to Bush? He must "defy his religious and corporate conservatives while making some serious proposals to win over the poor and minorities." In other words, he must become a morally superior liberal.

Well, that may be a perfect formula to win someone a reporting gig in the national print or broadcast media, but it's not a Republican's avenue to the White House.

Sadly, the Post just doesn't get it. Bush doesn't want to be a liberal. He doesn't want to remake conservatism. He just wants a fair hearing to make his case that conservatism is compassionate -- a hearing the national media will never be willing to give him.

~David Limbaugh of Cape Girardeau is a columnist for Creators Syndicate.