Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Tough love for the Democrats
Published on August 6, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

I find it amazing that the group of people most identified with worshipping the first amendment seem to be the ones most intolerant of opinions other than their own. For months we've seen left wing groups like MoveOn.org creating anti-Bush commercials that are only vaguely factual.  Celebrities have lent their voices to unseating George W. Bush.  Bruce Springsteen, for example, is currently doing a "Get Bush Out" concert tour (John Mellencamp wrote a song called "Bush is just another thug"). Heck, I can barely watch TV without some half-witted celebrity telling me that Bush needs to go.  This summer, we've had Fahrenheit 9/11 making over a hundred millions dollars and seen Michael Moore's mug on almost every magazine cover at one point or other.  In short, the left has certainly had its opportunity to get its views out.

But when conservatives try to get their message out, the left cries foul. Listening to the left, you'd think that Fox News was GOP TV.  In left-wing land, apparently, if the coverage isn't overtly left-wing it's GOP TV.  Sure, The Daily Show with John Stewart tends to be less sympathetic to conservatives than liberals.  And CNN, ABC, and NBC tend to prefer to cover social issues that are the strong points of the left.  And let's not forget the ridiculous media coverage of the Iraq war that's come from the New York Times and other "mainstream" media outlets.  But oh no! Bill O'Reilly at 8pm hates high taxes and is (gasp) a Catholic. It must be GOP TV! Those damn conservatives are able to get their message out on a cable news channel on top of AM radio! The sky is falling!

Meanwhile, conservatives have, for years, had to deal with the reality that most of the people who cover the news have political philosophies that are much different than their own. And while most of those who cover the news try to be fair, their own viewpoints inevitably creep into the news and especially in editorials. Conservatives have had to develop a sort of "Reality check" sense when listening to the news.  Liberals, by contrast, apparently are so thin skinned that people like Bill O'Reilly send them into fits of insanity. And don't get them started on Sean Hannity who CO-hosts a show with liberal Alan Colmes. Since when are conservatives allowed to speak at all? Isn't George Will's token appearance on "This Week" enough for those right wing nuts? Sure, "This Week" is hosted by Bill Clinton's former press secretary, but that's fine.

And now this week, the left is going berzerk over the Swift Boat veterans. Cries of unfairness ring loud and clear from the left. Well, as someone who's had to listen to Moore-ons all summer ranting their erroneous "facts" across the net and TV all summer. And had to see snippets of MoveOn.org's venom on TV I say, deal with it.  If Kerry hadn't made the cornerstone of his campaign about the 4 months he served in Vietname he wouldn't be vulnerable to the fact that most of the people who served with him don't support him.  Are the charges of the Swift Boat veterans unfair? Possibly. But compare that to the whole Bush went AWOL nonsense. Was that fair? At least this is based on some semblance of reality.

The first amendment means that all sides get to speak out.  Not just those who hold "correct" opinions.  Those people demanding that Bush or conservatives condemn the Swift Boat veterans and what not should be also demanding that Kerry and his supporters condemn Michael Moore and his ilk along with MoveOn.org.  But don't expect that to happen. Kerry, after, all, complemented hollywood stars such as Whoopi Goldberg, who, in his presence, made vulgar sexual references to Bush. 

So if the left things they're getting treated rough now, then they have no idea what rough behavior is. Perhaps they should start looking at the sewage their supporters have been heaping on the American public for the past half year.


Comments (Page 7)
7 PagesFirst 5 6 7 
on Aug 11, 2004

And I still have trouble with the notion that all mud that gets slung from the right is by definition orchestrated by the candidate via manipulating secret/back channels

im troubled as well because youre apparently skimming my comments or youd see that i wasnt talking about mud being slung by the right, but by this specific candidate's campaigns (with the focus on 2000, but i can make a similar case against every campaign in which gwb has played a major role--including the 1992 campaign for his father)

 

on Aug 11, 2004
Kingbee: The issue is apparent hypicricy.  The right has had to "suck it down" all year.  Michael Moore's bullshit has been in our faces for months but you don't see the right getting hysterical about it.  Yet  a group of vets get together and take out an ad in a few specific markets and the left goes bonkers about it.
on Aug 12, 2004

you don't see the right getting hysterical about it.

if it were possible to run a search in joeuser alone that could identify every shrill denunciation of moore's looks, attitude, parentage, motivation, personal hygiene, mental state, etc. and yall gave me $1 for every hit, i could run for office.   

moore's bullshit is bullshit and the swiftboat vets bullshit is bullshit and since bullshit is bullshit trying to claim that one pile is somehow better or worse than another because it was excreted by ones own animal is even more and more repulsive  bullshit

on Aug 13, 2004
I would say the swift boats are less BS than Moore.  Are you claiming the Swift Boats have said false things?  Besides, it's not just Michael Moore, you've got "OutFoxed" out there too that claims that Fox is "GOP TV".
on Aug 13, 2004
But you've also got talk radio as well...
on Aug 14, 2004
Yes, AM radio, very powerful. .
on Aug 15, 2004

I would say the swift boats are less BS than Moore.  .  Are you claiming the Swift Boats have said false things? 


false things? i don't know how to corroborate or discredit remembrances.  it's fair to say that several former swiftboat vets' 2004 claims conflict with statements theyve made in the past when one would suppose they'd have clearer memories.  id give the earlier versions more credence simply because there was no apparent agenda driving them.


it's much more difficult for me to accept a conclusion that one side or the other is more justified or less culpable when the best thing that can be said for either position is it's not as much bullshit as the other.  truth isnt a dilutable commodity;partial truths can't be validated by adding a bit more truth to the mix.   


 

on Aug 15, 2004
What exactly do you think the motivation for a bunch of veterans who served with Kerry to come out and try to discredit Kerry's stories?  These aren't jouranlists.  These aren't activists.  These are just a bunch of war veterans who have no particular axe to grind other than not liking how Kerry has portrayed the 4 months he was in Vietnam.
on Aug 15, 2004

These are just a bunch of war veterans who have no particular axe to grind other than not liking how Kerry has portrayed the 4 months he was in Vietnam


john oneill is a longtime activist/occasional journalist who once claimed to have been on kerry's boat even though he didnt arrive in vietnam until after kerry was gone.  a number of those who were there at the same time as kerry seem to have revised earlier appraisals or observations (including larry thurlow who claims kerry's boat wasnt being fired upon during the rassman rescue--in direct contradiction to the official after-action report which was also the basis for thurlow's bronze star).  retired admiral roy hoffman has been quoted as saying he doesnt have first-hand knowlege to discredit kerry because he didnt really know kerry personally. 


i have no idea what's motivating veterans other than oneill and hoffman.  but there's a significant lack of consistency including portraying kerry's vietnam service as lasting only 4 months. that was his second tour of duty  the first was aboard a frigate off the coast of vietnam.  

on Aug 15, 2004

Kerry was in Vietnam 4 months.  Sure, he was on a boat off the coast for the rest of his time? But this scrutiny doesn't happen in a vacuum. Which is safer? Being in a boat or flying fighter jets? What makes Kerry's service distinctive over Bush's are those 4 months.

on Aug 15, 2004

Kerry was in Vietnam 4 months.  Sure, he was on a boat off the coast for the rest of his time? But this scrutiny doesn't happen in a vacuum. Which is safer? Being in a boat or flying fighter jets? What makes Kerry's service distinctive over Bush's are those 4 months.

on Aug 15, 2004

i think a lot of navy vets will disagree with your dismissal of a full tour aboard warship off the coast of vietnam during that period of time as not qualifying as vietnam combat duty.  that is the main distinguishing characteristic of kerry's service: he was in combat.  bush wasnt. cheney--who received 5 deferments--has been quoted as saying he "had other priorities than military service"


 

7 PagesFirst 5 6 7