Thursday, August 26, 2004

Swift and Biased

This will be my only post on the Swift Boat nonsense. Only the most blindly partisan and reflexive commentators can be taking this matter seriously.

What happened back in the Viet Nam days is a silly argument for who should be president. Bush had his daddy help him dodge the draft. Fine. That doesn't mean he isn't the best choice to lead our nation today. Kerry went to Viet Nam and all but the most blindly Kerry-hating readers accept he did an at least adequate job. Fine. That doesn't mean he is the best choice to lead our nation today.

Kerry did not, despite the rabid right-wing radio charges, make his service the center-piece of his campaign, though one can scarcely blame the average Joe for thinking so, given the media idiotic fascination with this whole topic. While he has, justifiably, mentioned it with pride, the centerpiece of his campaign is his positions, though talk radio finds positions less worthy of attention than gossip.

Some crazy liberals are all in a twist about the possibility that Bush was photographed with medals he didn't earn. I truly don't care. And you shouldn't either. If you think he's doing a good job, and you could be dissuaded even by absolute, incontrovertible proof that 30 years ago he pinned the wrong medal to his shirt, you are stupid, and, while you are allowed to vote, you really shouldn't.

Ultimately, this is just an onanistic frenzy for people who care more about scoring points against the other side of the political debate than it is about discussing which candidate is a better leader for our nation. This "debate" is a great example of "point issues" as opposed to honest, legitimate political debate.

All that said, go read Ben Wasserstein's "You Can Report, but We Will Decide" for a fine analysis of how the right-wing corrupt media has stooped to new lows to fan the flames and give life to this bogus non-issue.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, it has to be given some consideration. Kerry is slipping in the polls due to the slanderous ads, even now despite the proven falsehood of the ads. Should people care about what happened 35 years ago? Perhaps not. Do people care? Apparently so, and if nobody steps up and shows these guys to be liars, it could have horrific implications for the future of the country.


8/26/2004 4:47 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Actually, the polling data isn't very convincing to me. The collections of polls I've seen show minor change - and it would probably be less if we democrats showed some spine and ignored this junk, rather than getting all worked up about it.

8/26/2004 7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope you're correct, but Kerry's down among veterans by 18 points from the latest polls I've seen. It's still awhile til November and I think Kerry can weather the storm but the GOP attack machine is well-oiled and well-practiced and I think it's dangerous to just ignore it all together.


8/28/2004 1:04 PM  
Blogger lj said...

Hey dolphin,
Are you having commenting problems on your blog? One of my comments has mysteriously disappeared.

It wasn't offensive unless that definition has been broadened.

I'm not accusing you, just wondering. I know Dan's site has a brief period until it shows up but I have never noticed that with your site.
If it was just a technical problem, I apologize but if you deleted it, I challenge you to show me the offensive part.

If you are for free speech, as your site says, you should be willing to entertain other's opinions, if in fact you have censored it.

After all, your comments on my blog are still there, offensive as they are.

8/28/2004 2:22 PM  
Blogger lj said...

I just noticed my IP is banned.

I guess that answers the free speech question.

And I am the one who hates?


8/28/2004 2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


History shows that it is very effective to label political opponents as hate-filled. It moves the discussion from logic and reasoned to discussion to the simplicity of dismissing the opponent as morally worthless.

I have noticed a pattern on this blog. You and others (of all political persuasions) discuss an issue. When Dolphin doesn't like the flow of the discussion, he labels the opponent as a hater. When asked to explain himself, he responds that the other side is motivated by hate and therefore he can't discuss the issue with them. He seems unable to accept that there can be a disgreement with him that is not motivated by hate on the other side. Of course, recognizing the humanity of one's opponents complicates life greatly - it forces us to listen, to think, to analyze and to consider at least the possibility that we are wrong. That's scary turf for some to tread.

With age, perhaps Dolphin will understand that most of us try to do our best as we slog through life's complications. I respect Dan's policy of non-censorship. It shows maturity and confidence. He's not afraid of ideas that are not his own.

8/30/2004 9:34 AM  
Blogger lj said...

In defense of dolphin, we have worked out our conflict. He has stated that he had website difficulties which temporarily kept me from posting. I have no reason to believe he is lying.

I apologize for my hasty conclusion. I think we should all take a step back sometimes and check our emotions before we are so quick to judge others. Myself included.

8/30/2004 2:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


8/30/2004 2:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home