Liberal Double Standards
Once again we have an example of the liberals' true idea of free speech. John Edwards, Democratic V.P. candidate, accused conservatives, specifically current V.P. Dick Cheney and Democratic senator Zell Miller, of dodging the important issues of this election by spewing anger and hatred toward John Kerry. For anyone who did not watch the speeches, I've included links containing the text of both Dick Cheney's and Zell Miller's speeches.
First, let's point out the obvious "inaccuracies" in Edwards' accusations. For all of Cheney's alleged "anger and venom", he devoted only six of 32 paragraphs towards Kerry. Within those six paragraphs, he focuses on Kerry's voting record and speeches and the ramifications of Kerry's record on his potential presidency. The remaining 26 paragraphs are spent primarily on extolling the virtues of Bush and the challenges America faces. Zell Miller is much rougher on Kerry and on the Democratic party as a whole (with a special mention of Ted Kennedy), but again he focuses on Kerry's record. At one point he said something that should be self-evident, but which evidently needed to be said anyway: "Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric."
Now, compare these speeches with some of the rhetoric that came out of the Kerry fundraiser, for example. I think it was John Mellencamp that called Bush a "thug", and Whoopi Goldberg made several overt analogies between the name "Bush" and female genitalia. Jessica Lange branded the Bush administration "a self-serving regime of deceit, hypocrisy and belligerence." Chevy Chase claimed of Bush, "This guy is as bright as an egg-timer." Now, while it can be argued that these are entertainers and thus fall outside normal standards of decency, Kerry stood up and declared these people to be the "heart and soul" of America. By doing so he has endorsed their statements and proclaimed them as representative of the American public.
Maybe this is what Kerry and Edwards mean when they speak of "two Americas", because I'm positive these entertainers aren't a significant part of *my* America.
Now, let's look at the "527" organizations, which are political organizations that fall outside the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. The vast majority of these groups (and the funding for these groups) have Bush in their crosshairs. However, the Kerry campaign has been somewhat slow to criticize these groups. That is, until the Swiftboat Vets managed to air an advertisement claiming that Kerry lied about his action in Vietnam. Then the Kerry campaign went into high gear condemning the ad, claiming that the Bush campaign was behind it, and demanding that Bush denounce the ad and the organization. Apparently, 527s are acceptable only so long as they don't trash Democrats.
Kerry's ilk went so far as to claim that, because the same lawyer was advising both the Bush campaign and the Swiftboat Vets' 527, that the Bush Campaign was definitely behind the ads. The hypocrisy here is stunning when you consider that Kerry's campaign is just as guilty.
Strangely enough, I haven't heard nearly as much fuss in the media about Kerry not denouncing 527s or about Kerry's campaign lawyers doing double-duty for the anti-Bush 527s. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the known tendency of the media to be very selective about what news the American people care about.
A surging opinion among liberals is that the Democrats are campaigning too timidly and aren't fighting the Evil GOP they way they should be. Of course they aren't putting up much of a fight! Why tarnish your own "positive" reputation when you have the most 527s to spew your negativity for you?
Oh, yes, the party that claims to be the real protector of free speech is exactly what they say they are -- Protectors of free speech. But only so long as the speech is favorable to the Democrats. Isn't it rather odd that this selective protection is so similar to the protections of free speech employed in Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany?
First, let's point out the obvious "inaccuracies" in Edwards' accusations. For all of Cheney's alleged "anger and venom", he devoted only six of 32 paragraphs towards Kerry. Within those six paragraphs, he focuses on Kerry's voting record and speeches and the ramifications of Kerry's record on his potential presidency. The remaining 26 paragraphs are spent primarily on extolling the virtues of Bush and the challenges America faces. Zell Miller is much rougher on Kerry and on the Democratic party as a whole (with a special mention of Ted Kennedy), but again he focuses on Kerry's record. At one point he said something that should be self-evident, but which evidently needed to be said anyway: "Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric."
Now, compare these speeches with some of the rhetoric that came out of the Kerry fundraiser, for example. I think it was John Mellencamp that called Bush a "thug", and Whoopi Goldberg made several overt analogies between the name "Bush" and female genitalia. Jessica Lange branded the Bush administration "a self-serving regime of deceit, hypocrisy and belligerence." Chevy Chase claimed of Bush, "This guy is as bright as an egg-timer." Now, while it can be argued that these are entertainers and thus fall outside normal standards of decency, Kerry stood up and declared these people to be the "heart and soul" of America. By doing so he has endorsed their statements and proclaimed them as representative of the American public.
Maybe this is what Kerry and Edwards mean when they speak of "two Americas", because I'm positive these entertainers aren't a significant part of *my* America.
Now, let's look at the "527" organizations, which are political organizations that fall outside the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. The vast majority of these groups (and the funding for these groups) have Bush in their crosshairs. However, the Kerry campaign has been somewhat slow to criticize these groups. That is, until the Swiftboat Vets managed to air an advertisement claiming that Kerry lied about his action in Vietnam. Then the Kerry campaign went into high gear condemning the ad, claiming that the Bush campaign was behind it, and demanding that Bush denounce the ad and the organization. Apparently, 527s are acceptable only so long as they don't trash Democrats.
Kerry's ilk went so far as to claim that, because the same lawyer was advising both the Bush campaign and the Swiftboat Vets' 527, that the Bush Campaign was definitely behind the ads. The hypocrisy here is stunning when you consider that Kerry's campaign is just as guilty.
Strangely enough, I haven't heard nearly as much fuss in the media about Kerry not denouncing 527s or about Kerry's campaign lawyers doing double-duty for the anti-Bush 527s. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the known tendency of the media to be very selective about what news the American people care about.
A surging opinion among liberals is that the Democrats are campaigning too timidly and aren't fighting the Evil GOP they way they should be. Of course they aren't putting up much of a fight! Why tarnish your own "positive" reputation when you have the most 527s to spew your negativity for you?
Oh, yes, the party that claims to be the real protector of free speech is exactly what they say they are -- Protectors of free speech. But only so long as the speech is favorable to the Democrats. Isn't it rather odd that this selective protection is so similar to the protections of free speech employed in Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home