It has been one of the crusades of this blog to get beyond "gotcha" politics (or in situations like Don Imus). I said that Larry Craig should not resign (although certainly what happened might be an issue for the voters of Idaho. I said that David Vitter should not resign. I thought the "guilt by association" politics of the media with regard to Mrak Foley was disgraceful. I thought the leftist campaign against George Allen in Virginia was even more disgraceful (McCaca and "N-----" word alleged use IN COLLEGE). I lthought the way the Anital Hill matter was raised against Clarence Thomas went beoyond disgraceful into the area of evil. More recently, the New York Times attempted smear of McCain was truly disgraceful (beyond merely helping McCain). The primarily leftist (albeit joined by some Republicans opposing him for the nomination) RELIGIOOUS BIGOTRY against Mitt Romney was beyond disgraceful--again into the realm of actual evi. What I think of the despicable Associated Press for running a "serious" story about Romney's great grandfather being a polygamist (horrors!!!) can't even be printed. It is one of the many reasons that I STRONGLY advise anyone associated in any way with the despicable AP to LEAVE THEM. It is an evil organization, willing to totally prostitute the "news" to advance its own agenda.
The above are all examples of leftist/mainstream media smears and attempted "guilt by association". I have said in this blog that the PRIMARY agent of the "politics of personal destruction" in the country today is the mainstream media (which means leftists, because leftists have automatic access to the mainstream media). This last is why leftists are so FURIOUS, to the point of hate, over the questions asked of Barack Obama in the most recent debate. Leftists feel that media people should raise these kinds of things ONLY against Republicans. They feel it is their RIGHT to have the media on their side (the "right" side, after all).
This also explains why Sean Hannity has been so hot on the William Ayers matter, and previously on Reverend Wright (BEFORE the really outrageous hate speech of Reverend Wright came to light, and it was apparently only a matter of a black preacher leaning toward "black liberation" theology). As I have said before in this blog, Sean Hannity has a cable TV mind, willing to HYPE mostly irrelevant things for all they are worth. Further, Sean Hannity was RAISED in the media culture referred to above. He is perfectly aware of the "politics of personal destruction" the mainstream media, and leftists, have unfairly waged against conservatives and Republicans--including conservative talk show hosts. Hannity does not believe in "turning the other cheek." I can uunderstand that. The hypocrisy here (on the left, and in the media) bothers me too. However, I think--for the good of the country--that we DO need to get beyond "gotcha" politics (which incudes Democrats in Congress trying to CRIMINALIZE political differences with the President). People should be willing to DEBATE THE ISSUES, without relying on ad hominem attacks. Every election is turning into a search for DIRT, rather than an examination of ideas (or even real experience and character, as distinguished from lapses in character that we ALL have).
As I have said, this election seems to have doomed this crusade of mine. There was Eliot Spitzer. I dearly would like to have defended him. But his conduct, as a sitting governor required to turn in the type of escort service he KNEW (because he had prosecuted them) was often associated with organized crime (besides being organized crime in and of itself), was simply indfensible. You just can't do what Spitzer did. It had nothing to do with adultery, or even previous contact with a prostitute years before. Then came David Patterson, who felt compelled to CONFESS ALL, even though I would regard most of what he confessed as his private business that I really did not want to know.
Then we came to Barack Obama. You can see a previous entry, in the archives of this blog, where I suggested that the original Hannity Reverend Wright/William Ayers obsession was, in fact, little more than dangerous attempted "guilt by association". As I said then, we really don't want people going through the statements/actions of the pastor of every candidate's church looking for a "gotcha" item that can be HYPED out of all proportion. That is the way toward religious bigotry and mean politics. In fact, Hannity defended himself on the ground that this was merely what was done to Romney, which is exactly the point What was done to Romney was WRONG. We need to get past it.
Then the Reverend Wright situation went nuclear--beyond mere "controversial" or questionable stuff into outright hate speech. As I said previously, the problem here is NOT that Reverend Wright endorsed Barack Oboma. The problem here is that Barack Obama implliedly endorsed the hate speech of Reverend Wright (whether Obama believed the same things or not). It really is EXACTLY the same as if a white politician belonged to a church whose pastor had endorsed statements of the Ku Klux Klan. NO white politician could survive that, and I think rightly. If you expect to be PResident of the United States, you have to OPPOSE hate speech like that (not just in the campaign, but in your adult LIFE--especially your recent adult life). You can't impliedly endorse a man, for 20 years, who would suggest that white Americans had invented the AIDS virus as a means of genocide against people of color (and all of the rest--see archive entries). It is no longer a matter of "guilt by association". It is now a matter of impliedly endorseing EVIL, when you have an obligation to stand up against evil (as with the Ku Klux Klan). Trent Lott, for example, was forced from his Senate leadership post for merely suggesting, at Strom Thurmond's BIRTHDAY party, that maybe the country would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had WON his "Dixiecrat" campaign for President in 1948. Even though I think the reaction was over the top, the rationale is that Lott was, by implication, ENDORSING EVIL. That is the same problem with Barack Obama, on what I think is a more fundamental scale (because over a longer period of time in a closer association).
But what is the message the LEFT (and the mainstream media) is going to get out of this? Right. They are going to get the message that DIRT MATTERS--that they just need to redouble their efforts to FIND DIRT, even if they have to manufacure it, or overhype it. That is why this campaign has been so disastrous for my personal crusade to turn politics back to honest debate. In the end, does Sean Hannity oppose Barack Obama because of William Ayers? Of course not.
Yes, you COULD say the same thing of me, and Barack Obama's implied endorsement of Reverend Wright's hate speech and his comments in San Francisco. However, you would be only partly right. As readers of this blog know, I am endorsing Hillary Clinton for President of the United States (over John McCain, if she could get the nomination). It is truethat I am doing that because I think anoterh President Clinton will be a disaster for the left, as the first one was. Still, I am willing to vote for her, without thinking I am betraying the country. I could not do the same with regard to Obama. As I have said repeatedly, I think Obama is DANGEROUS to the point that the country might not survive him as President (in the form we know it). Further, the San Francisco comments are part of the leftist, elitist philosophy that both Hannity and I abhor--not some sort of aberration. The attempt to "spin" those comments as an aberration is DECEPTIVE. In any event, I would hope that I would oppose a Republican running for President (as I opposse John McCain now, although not for anything of this moral magnitude) who was found to have acitively supported an organization trying to advance the goals of the Ku Klux Klan. Some types of evil are just beyond the pale, and I consider Reverend Wright in that light. Further, I don't believe that Obama was not aware of it, over the 20 years he was closely associated with Wright, and SUPPORTED Wright. To me, that alone disqualifies Obama from being President, especially where Obama has no post-Wright accomplishments to remove the "taint".
We (finally) come to Williaim Ayers. Was it Marc Antony who said (falsely): "I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. Actually, Marc Antony was not that hypocritical. He actually said what he meant: I come to bury Caesar, but NOT to praise him. And that is what my attitude is toward Barack Obama. However, I AM here to defend him on William Ayers.
Would I regard it as reprehensible, and a major issue, for a conservative to be a FRIEND of G. Gordon Liddy? G. Gordon Liddy, if you don't know, was the person who actually implemented the Watergate break in (although he insists it was really a John Dean operation that he was duped into for apparently sound, antional security reasons). Liddy is a CONVICTED FELON. Although I think he is certifiably nuts, in many ways (his "justification" for the Watergate break in is totally ridiculous), Liddy is also one ore interesting characters I have ever heard (or heard of). Although I was never a regular listener of his radio program, I have always found Liddy fascinating--a man of many virtues and a few massive flaws. I would be glad, and even proud, to be a friend of his (I have never met him). If I were in politics (lol there), I would hope such a friendship would NOT be an issue in a political campaign. Where Sean Hannity is right is taht I would probably hope IN VAIN. Liddy paid his FULL debt to society (no time off for repentance), but he remains unrepentant--like William Ayers.
Am I saying that it is WRONG to ASK Barack Obama about William Ayers (and his answer was singularly weak, by the way)? Nope. The Weather Underground was an evil organization that engaged in terrorist BOMBINGS--some in which people died. Further, on 9/11 (of all days), William Ayers wrote, in the New York Times, that he only regrets that he did not do MORE terrorist acts against targets in the U.S. Obama is "friendly" with Ayers (the extent to which he DODGED in answer to the question). It is a legitimate question to ask whether Obama shares some of the views of Ayers, just as I think it would be legitimate to ASK whether a politcal friend of Liddy thinks it was RIGHT for Liddy to break into the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate (assuming the facts were as Liddy says he thought them to be). The question is all right. It is just NOT an important ISSUE. We just have to avoid the idea that we should investigate all of a candidates friends and church officials/pastors--not to mention church beliefs, such as in the case of Romney). That is the WRONG path for our politics to take, and I am afraid this election season has driven us further down that path (perahps to the DETRIMENT of both media people and candidates who draw this lesson from recent evets, as VOTERS may well be getting pretty tired of it--especially when it is a substitute for all other kinds of campaign coverage and "debate"). Yes, to merely ask about Ayers was legitimate. But was it IMPORTANT enough to take up valuable debate time? I doubt it. In fact, I would say not. I STRONLY disagree with Hannity that voters are going to care about Ayers, unless it turns out that Obama has impliedly endorsed Ayers' attitude toward America in some way, as Obama impliedly endorsed Wright's attitude toward America. Mere "friendship" is NOT enough. I don't care if Ayers is a reprehensible character (as he is).
In a way, the "politics of personal destruction" all started with Watergate. The media found that it could, as it saw it, "bring down a President". I always thought that was the beginning of the "imperial media" (just at a time when the internet was about to arrive on the scene to make such arrogance a really BAD thing for them--the New York Times just reported a LOSS, and the media is now held in general contempt, by me especially).
I always thought Bill Clinton was, in fact, caught up in this new idea of constant "politics of personal destruction", even though he was also one of its most artful practitioners. I never thought there should have been a special prosecutor over Whitewater. I especially never thought that his extramarital affairs were material, or that the Paula Jones case should have gone anywhere (or been allowed to proceed while Clinton was President). However, I remain convinced that NO Republican could have survived sex with a young intern IN THE OVAL OFFICE. A test of your political objectivity is whether you recognize that absolute fact. Then there is the lying under oath (whether about sex or not), and the direct lies to the American people (ditto). So I don't reallly excuse President Clinton. But I can see why he thought he was being picked on early in his Presidency.
CAN we get to the point where politicians are allowed to have a private life, and where every real, or perceived, fall from verbal or personal grace is hyped into a major "issue" in political campaigns? I despair of it. But I remain convinced, despite the events of this election season, that we need to get past this minor stuff (such as the William Ayers matter). I think I am right that the Reverend Wright matter, and the San Francisco comments of Barack Obama, are NOT "minor stuff". But you may disagree. However, if ou do disagree, you should apply the SAME standards to people of both parties, and to people with whom you disagree. Otherwise, you are being intellectually DISHONEST. You may think I don't practice what I preach here, but I can assure you I TRY. Since I am human (as Hillary says: "contrary to rumor"), I may not always succeed.
I do think that you should all AGREE with me (as Hannity does not) that we have to get beyond playing "gotcha" on most of this stuff. We have to devleop some perspective on what is important and what is not. And we have to move toward being willling to fight campaigns on ISSUES, instead of looking for the EASY way out (dirt). Many things may reflect badly on a person's character without being IMPORTANT to a politician's candidacy. No one is perfect, and this idea that politicians have to successfully APPEAR to be perfect is insane.
No. It is not easy to know where to draw the line. It is almost a gut reaction. But if we fail to draw ANY line, then we are doomed to the "politics of personal destruction" forever after.
No comments:
Post a Comment