Taking The Pledge
Dean
Instapundit Glenn Reynolds has taken the Dean Esmay pledge, but also notes that rewarding Democrats for their unnecessarily bitter and divisive behavior over the last couple of years seems like a bad idea.
I quite agree. I would rather swallow glass than vote for Kerry at this point.
One of the biggest reasons I'll be voting Bush is to flip off all the jerks who've been calling Bush a liar "who took us to war under false pretenses," whipped up the Plame non-story when it was evident to any rational person from the beginning that it was fishy, gave us the Condie Rice witch hunt, and continued to flog the "Bush was AWOL" BS.
Then there were the nasty insinuations about Cheney and his "Halliburton connections" when in fact his connections are perfectly above board, perfectly legal, and he can never personally profit from anything good or bad that Halliburton does. Which anyone who does a few minutes of research knows. In fact, my belief is that many of them do know it, and just don't care. They just think it's "fun" to bring it up even though they know it's bogus.
Instead of focusing on their ideas, the left spent the last two years focused on whipping up hatred and fear and animosity. Now they make a hero of Michael "Lord Pork Pork" Moore and applaud even when they know the movie is full of lies?
They deserve a spanking, a big one, come November. I doubt if they'll get it, but they've certainly earned my undying contempt.
Being polite and accurate is a fine way of sending your enemies into a blind, foaming, rage.
So, er, if the EvilBushCheneyDeathAxis is trying to war-profiteer through Halliburton, they're not doing a very good job. Which is odd, for all the whining about "no-bid contracts", as if it was Horrible Corruption, rather than the only way to get a military contract done in the amount of time needed.
Helpful hint, guys: Just because the echo chamber thinks "Halllliburtoooooon!" wins an argument, doesn't mean anyone outside is buying it.
My suggestion is pretty much the same: you think you got evidence he lied, or is corrupt, make damn sure it's good evidence, something that you think would probably stand up in court.
If the measure of dignified opposition is to give the man a chance, then by all means I'm on board. I'm even willing to believe he has the best interests of his country at heart, an attitude I attempted to keep towards Bill Clinton for most of his presidency as well.
But I see no obligation of any kind to simply ignore what I feel are dangerous miscalculations on foreign policy and the conduct of the WoT.
Domestic policy I really couldn't care less about- the Presidient is little more than a glorified rubber stamp there anyhow.
Damn you, Esmay! Can't you block my IP from seeing your site? I haven't got the willpower to stop clicking. You're killing me here...
My own sense is that Democrats' incurred massive psychic costs in defending Bill Clinton's lies -- and that they continue to suppress the bad feelings incurred by defending Clinton's behavior by lashing out at Dubya. They try to tell themselves that everyone is a liar, and divert their subconscious's efforts to bring the subject of lies to their attention. It's also why they desperately hate Dubya -- because suppressing reality and defending the indefensible requires enormous psychic energy. Fighting off their own subconscious causes them to get nearly violent, and may spill over into violence.
Just my lay diagnosis :) $500, please.
"Since humanity is 100% evil and guilty of everything bad, anyone who doesn't feel guilty, or (just as bad) thinks that others are more guilty than themselves, is guilty of even more heinous crimes by thinking they could possibly be good."
Thus, if Bush or the Right dares to think that some GOOD might come of, well, anything they do, the Left thinks that's even more proof of Bush/The Right's evilness.
I'm oversimplifying and drawing on the extremes, of course, but I think the analogy holds in the main. (For those who don't know the reference, read the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind)
* No charges without strong evidence
* Attack the policies, not the man
We gots troubles.
Can you please provide links to the Cheny/Halliburton proof? I for one would love to see it.
Much better to hear it, though. He topped Gore for hysterics, hands down. *And* the delegates lined up to hear him for as long as five hours. So much for distancing themselves from the moonbats...
""Since humanity is 100% evil and guilty of everything bad, anyone who doesn't feel guilty, or (just as bad) thinks that others are more guilty than themselves, is guilty of even more heinous crimes by thinking they could possibly be good."
Thus, if Bush or the Right dares to think that some GOOD might come of, well, anything they do, the Left thinks that's even more proof of Bush/The Right's evilness."
A profound observation, and with many philosophical and spectrumological ramifications. One thing I've been thinking is this:
The spectrum is often depicted as being that the Left believes man is basically good while the Right believes man is basically evil. (See, e.g., Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions".) But I have found that the Left is just as prone to believe that man is evil while the Right often sees the good in man.
As I see it, the Left tends to start out with a belief in utopia (usually defined in terms of altruistic and egalitarian ethics) and in automatic progress through abstract reason. There is no such thing as evil, only ignorance or privation.
But, when they fail to reach the utopia, when the progress turns out to be other than automatic, they collaps into despair, cynicism, and nihilism. Then, there is no such thing as good. God is dead, the flag is a rag, it's all about the oil, etc.. The Left swings back and forth between these seemingly opposite extremes, between seeing no evil and seeing no good. Since we are all equal, we must all be good or else we must all be evil. Or all neutral shades of gray.
Those on the Right, by contrast, tend to see the world as by its nature shot through with both good and evil, nobility and depravity, heroism and treachery, a chiarascuro of sharp blacks and whites. Imperfection, opposition, conflict, inequality are inherent in the nature of life, we must each do the best we can, giving in to neither complacency nor despair. Some attain to the heights while others fall into the abyss. There is no equality and no automatic progress, only ceaseless struggle.
In January of 2001, President Clinton was a man who, to all appearances, had a good-to-great grade on foreign issues, good-to-great on domestic issues, booming economy etc.
But then the same people that have been conditioned or talked themselves into the corner of statements like "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is." and other silliness to weasel out of sexcapades and defend a potential 'Great!' president.... end up with their bubble bursting. It didn't all happen at once, so each gets rationalized.
But he is _still_ a _lot_ of people's hero. There was a quote yesterday 'If he'd just run again, I'd vote for him' (with the implicit 'to heck with the Constitution, it is fungible anyway'). (I think that was even a media type)
So there's a _lot_ of people that just can't believe that they idolize a guy whose foreign policy has shown to have deferred too many things that (in hindsight) needed to be dealt with swifter. And a 'boom' turned into a bust so fast there was only a couple of crooks caught before all the _others_ hit bottom and ended up too broke to bother with. The military cutbacks seem (again, in hindsight) too steep etc. Almost every single _action_ President Bush takes in the foreign arena is either diametrically opposed to the things President Clinton did - or something that renders it irrelevant. Who cares if you contained Saddam for 8 years - the next guy toppled him in 8 weeks. Who cares if you made a historic treaty with North Korea, the next guy claimed violations, scrapped it, and pressured China into the act. And on and on. They were... or could at least be _said_ to be good things. But they got trumped.
He's a great orator, he'd be a great Secretary of State... but _I_ for one wouldn't reelect him. And that tees off some people, even if just subconsciously. I have trouble picturing Kerry as president too.
Hmm, merely because I expect honorable and decent behavior from critics of the government? I've been pretty hard on some conservatives for their excessively obsessive Clinton-hating behavior.
I don't believe in God, nor neckties. I favor gay marriage, national health insurance, and legalizing not just medical marijuana but marijuana itself. I'm pro-choice on abortion, with limits. I would support Affirmative Action programs if they were open to all underprivileged kids of all races.
But I'm no longer convinced that raising taxes on "the rich" is a soveriegn remedy for fixing everything wrong in the world, and I'm convinced that if we don't have an aggressive foreign policy toward terror-sponsoring regimes that the results will be catastrophic for the US and the world.
So you tell me. I think I'm just a classic liberal. ;-)
But really, you need only ask those making these accusations a few simple questions:
What exact quid pro quo can you document between Cheney as Vice President and Halliburton? The public documentation we have all says exactly the same thing: that Cheney has a retirement package from Halliburton that can neither go up if Halliburton becomes more profitable, nor down if Halliburton loses money. Given that this is so, what evidence do you have that Cheney has any incentive to give Halliburton any special deals?"
Enough of the snearing, snotty insinutations and half-truths, with the mealy-mouthed "I'm just asking questions" crap when your questions should start by making an effort to inform yourself. Just be FUCKING HONEST God damn it. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Business Week, and several others have done investigations on this Halliburton stuff and found no laws broken and no evidence of malfeasance. Therefore, anyone taking the position that there's malfeasance there has the burden of proof on them.
You're being awfully snotty to your guest commenters this evening. But that's okay cuz it's your freaking blogsite. Mind if I but in ? On the pledge thingy..
If we find out that ex-Navy officer Kerry did or did not throw said honorable medals and or ribbons over the freaking fence during one of his Hanoi Jane war protests, can we still pretend he actually has the said medals that he is saving for his presidential libary just in case he beats Bush ? Like can we dump on him for that without breaking the pledge ?
I see it in even more simple terms.
The Left sees man as 100% evil, up-to-no-good and set on destroying the planet and all forms of life. I mean REALLY evil. The Left says "we're all DOOOOOMED!!". There is NO HOPE.
The Right sees man as 100% evil, up-to-no good and set on destroying the planet and all forms of life. I mean REALLY evil. But, now here's the difference, the Right believes man has the hope of being redeemed and mending his ways and being forgiven for his transgressions. And therefore "we'll all be SAAAVED from ourselves!!"
I mean this in a secular sense although I am a Christian. (That's what gives me my positive attitude.) %^/
Where does the truth lie?
That and being on the wagon probably makes me crankier. ;-)
I love the way you put that. Thank you. Much to think about.
but Cheney has been dumb by not just saying all that. even Byron York says so:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200309260913.asp
It is quite true that Cheney has handled the matter poorly. Then again, he and his aides have answered the question more times than I can count, always in exactly the same way, and after two years of endless accusations from the critics of nothing but insinuation and not a single citation of anything other than inuendo, it gets exhausting.
I spent some time looking through search archives and news archives on this Halliburton stuff and it's all the same: inuendo. "Questions raised." When the Veep or his people are inquired about it, the answer's the same. Cheney once said he had "no ties" and then when someone said yeah he does, he gets defferred compensation, Cheney says, "right, right, but that doesn't change. If Halliburton makes more money, I don't get a dime of it. If Halliburton makes less money, or even goes out of business, my retirement package stays the same. All of this is legal and I have no direct ties with the company anymore."
And the critics go on and on and on and on, "his old company got contracts in Iraq!" Which is... what exactly? Is there a smidge, so much as an ounce, of evidence that Cheney got any form of kickback? Halliburton got all kinds of contracts from the Clinton administration, was Cheney pulling strings then?
It is time to stop with the witch hunts. If you have evidence of malfeasance, let's have it. Otherwise, in three years, not a damned thing has changed: the Vice President gets a retirement package from Halliburton. It doesn't change no matter what happens to Halliburton. Halliburton makes record profits: Cheney gets the same package, no changes. Halliburton loses money? Cheny gets the same package. Halliburton goes bankrupt and goes out of business? Cheney gets the same package.
There is no "there" there, and constantly trying to whip this non-story into something is tiresome.
Maybe the Vice President should be blamed for not just saying, "fine! I'll give the retirement package up!" Although most of us recognize that even if he did that, all that his critics would do is shriek, "See! That proves he was doing something wrong!"
Ugh.
Maybe Bush should dump him, even though through three years of screaching about this the critics have yet to come up with a single law broken or a single example of actual malfeasance. But at some point, the fatigue of those of us who've watched all this is pretty high. Where's the actual proof of wrongdoing?
The Trilateral Commission with the helpof the Masosn and Queeen of England have hidden the proof in Area 51.5 (annex) with the car that Elvis drove through the Kalamazoo McDonald's drive-thru.
blackhelicopter blackhelicopter blackhelicopter
Republicans won't take the pledge because they are incredibly sore losers. You have to admit that they never did accept the Clinton presidency. The extreme right wing did everything they could to get the man out of office.
Now, did Gore take his defeat well. Hell no!! It's tough to lay down when you win the popular vote and there were some reasons to be skeptical.
Thankfully, our country tends to be run by moderates from both sides. However, the extremists keep the political debates interesting and colorful. Too bad most republicans are socially boring, but at least they have money.
I'd rather Bush 43 do what I wish Bush 41 had done: drop the incumbent VP and select Colin Powell instead. In either case, there would be/would have been a Bush re-elected easily.
That is a pretty dangerous incentive.
The Pledge is meaningless, because what you and Glenn others describe is what 90% of the people making it would do anyway: attack the policies, not the man, and not make scurrilous charges.
Not because of some silly-ass pledge, but because that's the type of people they are. They'd do the same without the pledge.
Just like the people doing the BUSH LIED!!! HALIBURTON!!! meme would do the same, pledges or no pledges - because that's the type of folks they are.
A marvelous case in point. ;) Be careful with that coolaid, son - you don't know where it's been.
I'm still not interested, Dean. *IF* Kerry wins [still way in doubt], I'll do as I damned well please and as my conscience dictates. I don't need a pledge to do that. And I'm inclined to be kinda skeptical of anyone who *does* require a pledge to behave honorably.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.