Remember "My Fellow Americans?" That was when two former presidents found themselves banding together to survive post office assassination attempts. Indeed, the current president was behind those attempts at assassination. It was pretty funny throughout. Esp. when the straight-laced (GOP) ex-president was forced to march in a gay pride parade to keep his buns from getting wasted. That was the development of "mutual trust." When the movie ended, both former presidents were basically running a campaign of partnership.
You get that impression with David Broder's (republished to the Spokesman-Review) editorial. McCain clearly angry... Obama clearly angry... And Broder then begins describing throughout his column the need for "mutual trust." Why is that? Could it be that Broder is finally tired of the Karl Rove style negative campaigning that Senator McCain did put his imprimature on? The Karl Rove style speech that Senator McCain did indeed deliver against his African-American opponent, and when called on it by Obama, started whining that he wasn't a racist? That Obama was indeed playing the race card? Mutual trust, huh? McCain had a chance to do that months before. He didn't choose to follow up on the whole idea that "mutual trust" betwen him and his Dem opponent as even being possible. Instead, he went the route of dirty politics to make his poll numbers rise. So, why would McCain develop a public "mutual trust" of his opponent if it wasn't to his political advantage?
And finally, as though to keep the war going and assure that "mutual trust" would never be assured, Broder then makes the public announcement that the invitation (to Obama) that the townhall meetings were still open. No word on whether Obama would accept them when by September to October, we are going to be facing pre-November debates. A little late now to address townhall meetings and then get ready for those debates. At this point, Broder (on the behalf of McCain perhaps) is beating a dead horse.
John Edwards sexual infidelity seemed to have sparked a gleeful GOP to remind the voters of Idaho about Larry LaRocco's past sexual indiscretions. What has the one incident to do with the other? Yes, LaRocco is running for office. No, Edwards is not now seeking public office. Presumably, so some folks commenting on the subject at Huckleberries online declared that LaRocco got hit with a sexual discrimination lawsuit. That should have been enough to keep him from getting into office at this time. If so, if voters are supposed to have heartburn over any candidate who has personal moral failures, no one would be qualified to hold office. :) But just try to tell the self-righteous that. In the entire history of this nation, truly honorable and principled men have been a most uncommon lot in the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Presidency and even more local state, county and city offices. Corruption is not new. It didn't happen yesterday. And being seen in the company of a woman not your wife seems to have become a "perk" that comes with the job.
My take on the matter is this, the GOP wouldn't have said a word if it was one of their own. Nor have they been in a rush to remove anyone from their ranks, esp. in Congress, Larry Craig comes to mind, for less than proper sexual dalliances. They have made far more of a fuss over Democrats failing to toe the moral line. Only if the news media finally gets wind of the story and it becomes an immediate embarrassment (Foley and the intern story, Foley ultimately resigned) then they may make some play at facing the fact that they really aren't God's Own Party after all. But (and this is in Vitter's case), they aren't prepared to cast the sinner out. So, where can the GOP legitimately stand when it comes to reminding voters of Mr. LaRocco's past indiscretions? Just as easily, they can be reminded that sexual indiscretions can be made less relevant than GW's lack of response to Katrina, and the aftermath there of. Or the collapse of Enron that destroyed the pensions of thousands of its employees. Or GW's less than stellar foreign policy experience—because Russia has now invaded Georgia a western and U.S. ally. And what does GW propose to do about that? Uh, now that we have a weakened U.S. Military that neither he nor McCain wanted removed from Iraq because even though we had plenty of "victories" we hadn't yet won. Right, what can we do about something that could easily lead to World War III? Not very far sighted, when it comes to ideology.
You get that impression with David Broder's (republished to the Spokesman-Review) editorial. McCain clearly angry... Obama clearly angry... And Broder then begins describing throughout his column the need for "mutual trust." Why is that? Could it be that Broder is finally tired of the Karl Rove style negative campaigning that Senator McCain did put his imprimature on? The Karl Rove style speech that Senator McCain did indeed deliver against his African-American opponent, and when called on it by Obama, started whining that he wasn't a racist? That Obama was indeed playing the race card? Mutual trust, huh? McCain had a chance to do that months before. He didn't choose to follow up on the whole idea that "mutual trust" betwen him and his Dem opponent as even being possible. Instead, he went the route of dirty politics to make his poll numbers rise. So, why would McCain develop a public "mutual trust" of his opponent if it wasn't to his political advantage?
And finally, as though to keep the war going and assure that "mutual trust" would never be assured, Broder then makes the public announcement that the invitation (to Obama) that the townhall meetings were still open. No word on whether Obama would accept them when by September to October, we are going to be facing pre-November debates. A little late now to address townhall meetings and then get ready for those debates. At this point, Broder (on the behalf of McCain perhaps) is beating a dead horse.
In other news
John Edwards sexual infidelity seemed to have sparked a gleeful GOP to remind the voters of Idaho about Larry LaRocco's past sexual indiscretions. What has the one incident to do with the other? Yes, LaRocco is running for office. No, Edwards is not now seeking public office. Presumably, so some folks commenting on the subject at Huckleberries online declared that LaRocco got hit with a sexual discrimination lawsuit. That should have been enough to keep him from getting into office at this time. If so, if voters are supposed to have heartburn over any candidate who has personal moral failures, no one would be qualified to hold office. :) But just try to tell the self-righteous that. In the entire history of this nation, truly honorable and principled men have been a most uncommon lot in the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Presidency and even more local state, county and city offices. Corruption is not new. It didn't happen yesterday. And being seen in the company of a woman not your wife seems to have become a "perk" that comes with the job.
My take on the matter is this, the GOP wouldn't have said a word if it was one of their own. Nor have they been in a rush to remove anyone from their ranks, esp. in Congress, Larry Craig comes to mind, for less than proper sexual dalliances. They have made far more of a fuss over Democrats failing to toe the moral line. Only if the news media finally gets wind of the story and it becomes an immediate embarrassment (Foley and the intern story, Foley ultimately resigned) then they may make some play at facing the fact that they really aren't God's Own Party after all. But (and this is in Vitter's case), they aren't prepared to cast the sinner out. So, where can the GOP legitimately stand when it comes to reminding voters of Mr. LaRocco's past indiscretions? Just as easily, they can be reminded that sexual indiscretions can be made less relevant than GW's lack of response to Katrina, and the aftermath there of. Or the collapse of Enron that destroyed the pensions of thousands of its employees. Or GW's less than stellar foreign policy experience—because Russia has now invaded Georgia a western and U.S. ally. And what does GW propose to do about that? Uh, now that we have a weakened U.S. Military that neither he nor McCain wanted removed from Iraq because even though we had plenty of "victories" we hadn't yet won. Right, what can we do about something that could easily lead to World War III? Not very far sighted, when it comes to ideology.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment