View Single Post
Old 10-03-2005, 06:20 AM   #38 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason
Psycho
 
Location: Greenwood, Arkansas
This "comparative review" notion--"well, Bush isn't as bad as Clinton" rings hollow with me. Why would a supporter of Bush think that comparing him favorably to Clinton is beneficial? That's like someone saying "I'm not as bad as the town drug dealer or shady used car salesman." How about using a better yardstick for measuring, like how one stands up against the Boy Scout volunteer or the school teacher that tutors on her time off?

This kind of thinking is worthwhile to me for one reason, though. I keep a mental scorecard on pundits. If one was critical of Clinton for bombing Iraq and making statements about how scary Hussein was in 1998, then that one has standing to be critical of Bush in 2003. Otherwise, they need to shut up. Likewise, if someone is supportive now of Bush on something--immigration, let's say--but harps on the next Democrat for not closing the border, then I have no interest in listening to them.

In other words, cheerleaders don't interest me. Anyone that is carping on Bush for being a criminal and didn't support the removal of Clinton during his impeachment is a hypocrite, and unworthy of my time.
__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

Last edited by AVoiceOfReason; 10-03-2005 at 06:27 AM..
AVoiceOfReason is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73