Now I Remember
I have mentioned many times how much it annoys me when Bush and his camp says Kerry voted against funding the war. It's true, but the statement implies that Kerry was against funding the war, which is false (of course, Kerry has recently fed into this himself a bit, by implying he voted against the funding because he was against the war itself, but that was covered already).
So this weekend Kerry made a similar unreasonable implication about Bush, but I couldn't remember what it was. Yesterday I recalled it.
Kerry has begun saying that Bush opposed the forming of the 9-11 Commission. While true, it implies that he was against government investigating what happened, which is false. What really happened is that, because of the sensitive nature of the intelligence involved, Bush wanted existing Congressional committees to handle the investigation.
It's the same thing: a guy supports the overall goals but supports doing them in a different way, and gets slammed as though he opposed the goals. You could very well argue that Bush's plan for the 9-11 investigation would have been inferior or more serving of his own interests; but that's not interesting, because the exact same thing can be said of Kerry and his favored method for funding the war.
I am suddenly reminded of Monday's The Daily Show (one of my top few favorite TV shows) where Jon Stewart makes a Texas congressman look foolish by showing that he didn't know what he was talking about when he called Kerry the most liberal Senator. It was a great moment for Stewart and TDS, but Stewart doesn't grill the people on the left like that. It's the one thing I dislike about TDS: he is far more deferential toward the people he agrees with more. Both sides lie out their behinds, and he lets his guests on the left get away with more of it.
But then I wonder how useful this all is. In the end, does anyone care if any of the spin is true or not? Both sides get exposed for their dishonesty and nothing seems to change, either in public support for them and what they say, or in their methods.
So this weekend Kerry made a similar unreasonable implication about Bush, but I couldn't remember what it was. Yesterday I recalled it.
Kerry has begun saying that Bush opposed the forming of the 9-11 Commission. While true, it implies that he was against government investigating what happened, which is false. What really happened is that, because of the sensitive nature of the intelligence involved, Bush wanted existing Congressional committees to handle the investigation.
It's the same thing: a guy supports the overall goals but supports doing them in a different way, and gets slammed as though he opposed the goals. You could very well argue that Bush's plan for the 9-11 investigation would have been inferior or more serving of his own interests; but that's not interesting, because the exact same thing can be said of Kerry and his favored method for funding the war.
I am suddenly reminded of Monday's The Daily Show (one of my top few favorite TV shows) where Jon Stewart makes a Texas congressman look foolish by showing that he didn't know what he was talking about when he called Kerry the most liberal Senator. It was a great moment for Stewart and TDS, but Stewart doesn't grill the people on the left like that. It's the one thing I dislike about TDS: he is far more deferential toward the people he agrees with more. Both sides lie out their behinds, and he lets his guests on the left get away with more of it.
But then I wonder how useful this all is. In the end, does anyone care if any of the spin is true or not? Both sides get exposed for their dishonesty and nothing seems to change, either in public support for them and what they say, or in their methods.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment