I wish a robot would get elected president. That way, when he came to town, we could all take a shot at him and not feel too bad.
Remind me, what year is this? I keep forgetting. It's not really that I can't remember, it's that I can't keep it straight. In my head, it's like 2003 or 2004. But, for some reason, I keep thinking that it's much earlier than that. Somewhere like 1950 feels right. But I really wouldn't know, cause I wasn't alive then. Cursed. Maybe it's 1973. yeah, that's more like it. I wasn't alive then either, but again, it apparently doesn't matter.
Ah, yes. Politics. Where Times New Roman means more than "job creation."
What's that?
It's where service (or lack of service) in a war that has long been referred to as the past is more important than the service of those in war that some have said is in the past but some could argue is very much the present and future.
Huh?
Where character means as much as agenda.
Since when have we elected a president based on character? Kennedy was a womanizer ... for that matter, so was Clinton. Ford had no character. Nixon? Reagan? They were men of character? Moral? One lied. The other was a divorcee. Bush Sr.? Well, maybe...
Why does character matter? Why, for that matter does morality? The same people who claim Bushie is a moral man, are the same that made a hero of Reagan. (Perhaps many of these same people are the ones that believe Rush got a bad rap and isn't really a drug addict. Perhaps these are the same people that forget about the DUIs and blow in Bushies past.)
OK, I've shown my colors.
But really, is it OK to ignore one candidates past in order to attack the others?
Is Kerry a flip-flop? Yeah. I'll admit that. But is it worse than a candidate going back on a campaign promise? (Anyone remember what Bush said about the environment ... discuss it amongst yourselves.)
Did Kerry exaggerate his war record? Maybe. But is it worse than a man exaggerating the reasons behind a war? I think a war record and an actual war are two very different things.
(Time machine time) Did Clinton smoke pot? Yup ... remember, he didn't inhale, but he was vilified. As a side note, I'm very happy he was elected, cause, if you're that age and haven't smoked pot, I don't think I trust you. Again, Rush is a drug addict. Was, I'm sorry, he's rehabbed so he's all good. And Bush, that whole coke thing ... all in the past.
Did Clinton avoid the war? Yup. But, wait, didn't Cheney get six deferments? And Ashcroft? Well, he was busy in school with Wolfowitz. And Bush? Well, he protected Alabama. Could you imagine if Bush were in the Alabama Air National Guard today? Heck, he'd be in Iraq in the shit so to speak. Just a thought.
OK, long story short. The point is not that character doesn't matter. I think it probably should (Oh crap, there goes my argument, I flip-flopped) matter. But, I just don't think that a person with suspect morals and character should be attacked by a person who's character and morals are suspect too.
Ah, yes. Politics. Where Times New Roman means more than "job creation."
What's that?
It's where service (or lack of service) in a war that has long been referred to as the past is more important than the service of those in war that some have said is in the past but some could argue is very much the present and future.
Huh?
Where character means as much as agenda.
Since when have we elected a president based on character? Kennedy was a womanizer ... for that matter, so was Clinton. Ford had no character. Nixon? Reagan? They were men of character? Moral? One lied. The other was a divorcee. Bush Sr.? Well, maybe...
Why does character matter? Why, for that matter does morality? The same people who claim Bushie is a moral man, are the same that made a hero of Reagan. (Perhaps many of these same people are the ones that believe Rush got a bad rap and isn't really a drug addict. Perhaps these are the same people that forget about the DUIs and blow in Bushies past.)
OK, I've shown my colors.
But really, is it OK to ignore one candidates past in order to attack the others?
Is Kerry a flip-flop? Yeah. I'll admit that. But is it worse than a candidate going back on a campaign promise? (Anyone remember what Bush said about the environment ... discuss it amongst yourselves.)
Did Kerry exaggerate his war record? Maybe. But is it worse than a man exaggerating the reasons behind a war? I think a war record and an actual war are two very different things.
(Time machine time) Did Clinton smoke pot? Yup ... remember, he didn't inhale, but he was vilified. As a side note, I'm very happy he was elected, cause, if you're that age and haven't smoked pot, I don't think I trust you. Again, Rush is a drug addict. Was, I'm sorry, he's rehabbed so he's all good. And Bush, that whole coke thing ... all in the past.
Did Clinton avoid the war? Yup. But, wait, didn't Cheney get six deferments? And Ashcroft? Well, he was busy in school with Wolfowitz. And Bush? Well, he protected Alabama. Could you imagine if Bush were in the Alabama Air National Guard today? Heck, he'd be in Iraq in the shit so to speak. Just a thought.
OK, long story short. The point is not that character doesn't matter. I think it probably should (Oh crap, there goes my argument, I flip-flopped) matter. But, I just don't think that a person with suspect morals and character should be attacked by a person who's character and morals are suspect too.
posted by dr gooch at 23.9.04
3 Comments:
Nicely put. Still, I don't think of character and ideology as being mutually exclusive, and ideology dictates policy.
The sad, unstated undercurrent of your comments, in my view, is that we have few examples of men of character in politics, and even if there are men and women with any semblance of ethical conviction, it's invariably compromised by the process. I know I am tossing out whiny, cynical generalities here, but I am talking about bloated structure, a system in the Foucauldian sense, that gnashes up whatever gets into its teeth.
Who made little mistakes X, Y, or Z doesn’t really even matter—it’s just interchangeable fodder for a politico-media complex (intentional pun) with greater mass dissemination resources than compunction, sense, or restraint.
--plasticbratt
Yeah, what he said.
Thanks Greg.
Damn, what gave me away? Was it the reference to Foucault? Haha
Great page, Gooch.
Post a Comment
<< Home