Goose and Gander: Take a Rest!
Something struck me the other day as rather odd when I was reading a local newspaper article about the two major candidates for the House seat in my district. The paper compared their views, records, etc. for voters. Fine. Then I saw that the paper researched how each dealt with the draft in the Viet Nam era.
The Democrat had volunteered for the Navy. The Republican used school deferment.
In a related article, the paper, which is a solid left/Dem supporter, went on to add comments about how terrible it was that this Republican avoided military service in his own time and yet supported Dubya during the run up to the Iraq war.
They can do that on the opinion page, no problem. However, the stink of hypocrisy is all over this thing. And now that I think about it, the same came be said for the Dubya/Kerry thing as well (remember what a big deal that was at the time?).
The democrats seem to want to point out that for a left wing individual, avoiding (by any means, legal or illegal) and protesting the war in Viet Nam was the right and noble thing to do. Except, of course, if that person happens today to be a Republican, in which case that person was a coward or a nepotist. Or a hypocrite.
Come on.
I understand there are valid points to made about how people (who are now running for public office) behaved during that time. The choices people make reveal their character. But what digs me is that this issue, which seems to keep coming up, is used as a political football. And it doesn't really matter to the spin doctors what choice the future candidates made--if it was the opposition, it was a bad choice. Tell me, how is it OK for a yippie to break the law, move to Canada, then come back to the US and run for office (I'm talking about Hanoi Jane's former hubby here) win, and all is well and good, because he was "doing the right thing" by avoiding the war? The same standard is not applied to the opposition, who took advantage of their daddy's influence, or money or whatever, to effectively do the same thing. "One guy is good, one is bad," is what they would have voters believe. Horse hockey.
I also understand that in today's vitriolic political environment, nothing is out of bounds, nothing is beyond ridicule, and "scruples" is just a word, not any type of practicing character trait. How dumb do they think the voters are? I'm pretty sure some are willing to fall for that type of red herring, thinking it really does makes a difference in how that candidate will legistlate in the future. But not many. Most political mudslinging is just hedonistic mental masturbation. Preaching to the choir. This crud doesn't really seem to change the way people look at the candidiates. Righties vote for the right, lefties for the left.
What is really accomplished in the end? In my mind, they simply paint themselves as foolish, petty, childish, assumptive charlatans. Which they are. Perhaps not all, but most of them.
Now HERE is a revelation of character: someone who refuses to engage in negative mudslinging, and runs on the issues. It's depressing, but I can't remember anyone like that.
It's futile and perhaps even a little silly to get up in arms about what happened 30 or 40 years ago, when most of those folks were just plain scared s***less of dying in that bulls*** war. So get real people. U.S involvement in that war ended 33 years ago. It's time to let it rest. And get down to issues.
The Democrat had volunteered for the Navy. The Republican used school deferment.
In a related article, the paper, which is a solid left/Dem supporter, went on to add comments about how terrible it was that this Republican avoided military service in his own time and yet supported Dubya during the run up to the Iraq war.
They can do that on the opinion page, no problem. However, the stink of hypocrisy is all over this thing. And now that I think about it, the same came be said for the Dubya/Kerry thing as well (remember what a big deal that was at the time?).
The democrats seem to want to point out that for a left wing individual, avoiding (by any means, legal or illegal) and protesting the war in Viet Nam was the right and noble thing to do. Except, of course, if that person happens today to be a Republican, in which case that person was a coward or a nepotist. Or a hypocrite.
Come on.
I understand there are valid points to made about how people (who are now running for public office) behaved during that time. The choices people make reveal their character. But what digs me is that this issue, which seems to keep coming up, is used as a political football. And it doesn't really matter to the spin doctors what choice the future candidates made--if it was the opposition, it was a bad choice. Tell me, how is it OK for a yippie to break the law, move to Canada, then come back to the US and run for office (I'm talking about Hanoi Jane's former hubby here) win, and all is well and good, because he was "doing the right thing" by avoiding the war? The same standard is not applied to the opposition, who took advantage of their daddy's influence, or money or whatever, to effectively do the same thing. "One guy is good, one is bad," is what they would have voters believe. Horse hockey.
I also understand that in today's vitriolic political environment, nothing is out of bounds, nothing is beyond ridicule, and "scruples" is just a word, not any type of practicing character trait. How dumb do they think the voters are? I'm pretty sure some are willing to fall for that type of red herring, thinking it really does makes a difference in how that candidate will legistlate in the future. But not many. Most political mudslinging is just hedonistic mental masturbation. Preaching to the choir. This crud doesn't really seem to change the way people look at the candidiates. Righties vote for the right, lefties for the left.
What is really accomplished in the end? In my mind, they simply paint themselves as foolish, petty, childish, assumptive charlatans. Which they are. Perhaps not all, but most of them.
Now HERE is a revelation of character: someone who refuses to engage in negative mudslinging, and runs on the issues. It's depressing, but I can't remember anyone like that.
It's futile and perhaps even a little silly to get up in arms about what happened 30 or 40 years ago, when most of those folks were just plain scared s***less of dying in that bulls*** war. So get real people. U.S involvement in that war ended 33 years ago. It's time to let it rest. And get down to issues.
3 Comments:
I don't see what you are so upset about. I don't know about the candidates for your local office, but the W/Kerry comparison is entirely justified.
W supported the Vietnam war, did everything he could to avoid actually fighting himself, failed to even show up what little he was supposed to do, and then 30 years later sent off young men to die in a stupid senseless war, not the least of which because he never learned what war really is. This is beyond hypocrisy - it is punishing others for failing to learn lessons he himself should have learned as a young man, but was too priveledged and/or drunk to bother. I don't think it is just coincidence that all the people in this administration who were most gung-ho for war were chicken hawks in their real lives.
Kerry, on the other hand, could have chosen to use his privledge to get out of war, but went anyway, and became a war hero. He did the honorable thing, and yet was smeared by republicans with the swift-boat nonsense, which conservatives swallowed as truth. It makes my head want to explode.
The issue is one of character. If you go to canada during the war, then come back as a war hawk, you are a cheap hypocrite, willing to force others to do things you were not willing to do yourself. It is the same with anyone in a desk chair typing out reasons why other people should be fighting in Iraq. It is selfish hypocrisy of the worst kind.
It isn't a smear to report what is true, even if it makes Republicans look bad.
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias"
-Stephen Colbert
I hate to say it, but your comment illustrates my point rather deftly. But I refuse to join a partisan debate on who has the high ground when it comes to the specifics of...whatever. It seems you want to argue the details of whose better, W or Kerry. I won't do it. Sure, there are many points I could make, defend, research, etc. for BOTH SIDES about what each one did that was right/wrong or good/bad etc. But I think this is wrongheaded given the point I was trying to make.
If you don't see what I'm upset about, then reread the title. Then read the whole thing again. Only this time, try to read it without all the partisan baggage you seem to burden yourself with.
Did you notice that I said that, Yes, there is a revelation of character based on choices? Or did you have your eyes closed when you read that part? ;)
More importantly, Do you not see that folks on both sides are damned if they do and damned if they don't? And both sides are doing the damning? No matter what the opposition does or doesn't do? And that all the arguing in the world, no matter how skillful, is not going to change righties to lefties, lefties to righties, up to down, green to red?
I'm trying to make the point that the system is corrupt. Or broken. Or just plain flawed. Or we have lost our way. All of us. And don't give me that crap that Dems are somehow better or immune. They are human, therefore not immune to corrupt human nature. Just look at their tactics. I've heard you bemoan on many occasions that the left has not adopted a more aggressive set of tactics when it comes to defeating what you see as the enemy (the right). Well, that time is here. I don't believe in "the lesser of two evils" approach to voting, because if I did, I'd still be supporting evil. Sorry, can't do it. So for me that means the left is now as bad as the right. Which is why I won't vote. And it's why I have no hesitation about slamming the left. I've said before, that there are plenty of folk willing to slam the right, and that it is quite easy to do so, so I slam the left wherever I see the same kind of hypocrisy, corruption, double-standards, doublethink and partisan-induced illogic.
I don't mean to slam YOU, Dan, but if you keep stepping in front of runaway trains while blindly following some political idealogy, or party or creedo, you're bound to get hit once in a while. Because trains can't swerve to miss you. And that train is called "objective, non-partisan, criticism."
Anarchy-ly Yours,
and
With Respect...
You are seeing a moral equivalency between the right and the left that simply doesn't hold up to analysis.
Let's look at this particular example: The right criticizes people on the left for having protested the Vietnam war, and also criticize people on the left who went to war, but they smear as cowards anyway (Kerry, Max Cleland).
The left criticizes current war hawks on the right for avoiding Vietnam when they had a chance to prove their commitment to defense of the country. The left does not criticize people who actually went to war. In fact, as far as I can tell, there are very few conservatives who went to war in Vietnam who are now war hawks.
You seem to be saying that any criticism of others is some kind of unacceptable political smear. Republicans hit democrats over the head with a hammer when they are looking the other way, the Democrats turn around to fight, and you criticize Democrats for fighting. I don't get it.
Yes, political arguments get tiresome and many times ugly. Yes, Democrats can be weenies who don't often uphold their own stated values. But that isn't any kind of moral equivalency between the kinds of tactics the Republicans engage in (e.g., swift-boating) and those Democrats engage in (pointing out the hypocricy of certain Republicans).
Democrats are not saviors that are going to make everything OK. But the abuse of power and degradation of one-party rule over the last 6 years has made this country a shadow of what it is supposed to be. Criticising Democrats is misplacing your frustrations.
Post a Comment
<< Home