Left vs. Right
One thing I hate is hypocrisy.
Like when the Democrats violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the filibuster rules to block judicial nominees, but then scream when Bush violates the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of recess appointments in response. Same thing happening again, where they continue to threaten to violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the filibuster rules, and attack the Republicans for threatening to violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the rules in response (the widely misunderstood "nuclear option").
Another example of hypocrisy is the latest cries from Democrats about some ad campaign that says the fight over judicial nominees is an attack by Democrats on "people of faith." Senator Chuck Schumer said yesterday it was "over the line" and "deeply un-American," inferring that the organizers are saying that Democrats are not people of faith.
Now, I think this interpretation is over the line, as what was actually said is that the filbuster is being used against people of faith, which seems to me to be accurate, and at least arguable. But even if true, how is this private citizen saying that any worse than the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, saying that Republicans are evil? Isn't what Dean said far worse, not only in what he said, but in that he is the party leader and this other guy isn't a party official at all? And there is no reasonable room for creative interpretation in what Dean said, either.
Another recent Dean example came up recently. We all have heard about the mid-level GOP staffer who was fired because he wrote a memo that said the GOP could use the Terri Schiavo situation to their political advantage. Now Howard Dean says basically the same thing, that the Democrats will use Terri Schiavo to their political advantage, and where's the outrage? The calls for his resignation?
And then there's DeLay. What is there to say? Because the House can investigate anyone based on a party line vote in the ethics committee, the Democrats investigate DeLay. When DeLay is found to be innocent of any ethics rules violations, they say he was "admonished," which has no actual meaning. And when the Republicans try to prevent this purely politically motivated attack from happening again by requiring at least one member of the opposing party to concur in order to investigate -- thereby preventing the Democrats from using these dirty tricks in the future -- they attack that as unreasonable and un-American and all the rest.
Not that I expect either party to be as critical of their own as of the other -- the Republicans have done the same or similar in the past to most of this -- nor do I expect the press to care as much about hypocrisy of Democrats versus potential wrongdoing of Republicans. But I like to note it for those on the left who think their side is pristine. Lately, they've been quite a lot worse than the Republicans in these matters.
Like when the Democrats violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the filibuster rules to block judicial nominees, but then scream when Bush violates the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of recess appointments in response. Same thing happening again, where they continue to threaten to violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the filibuster rules, and attack the Republicans for threatening to violate the-spirit-but-not-the-letter of the rules in response (the widely misunderstood "nuclear option").
Another example of hypocrisy is the latest cries from Democrats about some ad campaign that says the fight over judicial nominees is an attack by Democrats on "people of faith." Senator Chuck Schumer said yesterday it was "over the line" and "deeply un-American," inferring that the organizers are saying that Democrats are not people of faith.
Now, I think this interpretation is over the line, as what was actually said is that the filbuster is being used against people of faith, which seems to me to be accurate, and at least arguable. But even if true, how is this private citizen saying that any worse than the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, saying that Republicans are evil? Isn't what Dean said far worse, not only in what he said, but in that he is the party leader and this other guy isn't a party official at all? And there is no reasonable room for creative interpretation in what Dean said, either.
Another recent Dean example came up recently. We all have heard about the mid-level GOP staffer who was fired because he wrote a memo that said the GOP could use the Terri Schiavo situation to their political advantage. Now Howard Dean says basically the same thing, that the Democrats will use Terri Schiavo to their political advantage, and where's the outrage? The calls for his resignation?
And then there's DeLay. What is there to say? Because the House can investigate anyone based on a party line vote in the ethics committee, the Democrats investigate DeLay. When DeLay is found to be innocent of any ethics rules violations, they say he was "admonished," which has no actual meaning. And when the Republicans try to prevent this purely politically motivated attack from happening again by requiring at least one member of the opposing party to concur in order to investigate -- thereby preventing the Democrats from using these dirty tricks in the future -- they attack that as unreasonable and un-American and all the rest.
Not that I expect either party to be as critical of their own as of the other -- the Republicans have done the same or similar in the past to most of this -- nor do I expect the press to care as much about hypocrisy of Democrats versus potential wrongdoing of Republicans. But I like to note it for those on the left who think their side is pristine. Lately, they've been quite a lot worse than the Republicans in these matters.
"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