Thursday, October 8, 2009

More on... "Those Lying Sacks Of Shit"

Wow! My last blog got some immediate attention. I started to write answers to each and realized it would be more efficient to just blog again!

Thanks to “The Collector” who pointed out that both McCain and Chuck Hagel were quick to jump out in condemnation of the ad in question. I appreciate the fact that they are both willing to lay it on the line at the risk of angering the more militant in their party. McCain, I’m sure, would always come out in the defense of fellow veterans who served honorably. I don’t know if I have mentioned this or not but John McCain very well might have gotten my vote. In fact, during the primaries he was probably my #2 choice behind Hillary (again, I’m not as liberal as you think). He weakened during the debates (especially when he insisted he knew how to get Bin Laden… I mean WTF? Was he keeping it a secret or holding it hostage until he became elected?) but his choice of Sarah Palin sank it for him. That was a horrible decision that eliminated him from contention in my mind. I’ve also always had a degree of respect for Chuck Hagel. He has demonstrated complete willingness to speak his mind and vote his conscience. The Republican Party would have done themselves a huge favor if they had paid more attention to his condemnations of the conflict in Iraq. Certainly the families of those killed wish he's been listened to more closely.

RW states that nobody put up Cleland’s photo alongside Bin Laden and Hussein. I watched the ad and RW is right. But RW is also full of shit. The obvious intent of the ad was to ASSOCIATE Cleland with the images of “Binny” and Saddam. The ad LEADS with images of “Binny” and Saddam. Any praise Saxby made of Cleland’s service was after the damage had already been done. Besides, Saxby has come out in defense of that ad after the fact as well so any “praise” he may have showered on Cleland is moot. And no, there is nothing wrong with listing a voting record. And I will scream about this on both sides of the fence. If you are going to show a record, show it all. Yes, the Dems do it too and I don’t like it. But the topic wasn’t whether or not to show voting records as much as it was associating a candidates image with terrorists and dictators. The ad certainly didn’t point out that Max Cleland voted in FAVOR of granting THE MORON the power to invade Iraq did it? So it was an incomplete picture.

Presiditioned said I should do a little research before I start spouting. He points me to an article in the “National Review” (certainly among my first choices when it comes to non-partisan publications… he said… tongue in cheek…) in which the author paints Cleland as a “liberal victim”. It’s an editorial. What a surprise… a conservative editor of a conservative periodical sees nothing wrong with an attack on a liberal candidate. Golly, I’m shocked. That's not research. That's desperate fishing for like minded people who share your opinions. Don’t send me links to crap. I don’t quote the “Huffington Post” and don’t want to hear garbage from the right side's equally partisan toilet paper rags.

This “below the belt” politicking is really pretty reprehensible regardless of whether it comes from the left or the right. The reality, and a major source of my “anti-right” stance, is that so much more of it comes from the right. I have thrown out the challenge before and probably will again. Show me an email painting John McCain as a war crazed neo Nazi maniac. Show me an email that implies Sarah Palin was an Anchorage prostitute before she got into politics. Show me an email that claims Ann Coulter is a communist operative whose mission is to disrupt the flow of democracy. They aren’t out there. But if I ask you to show me an email that says Obama is a Muslim…..


Common Sense

No comments:

Post a Comment