Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Enough is Enough...

The following rant by Ezra Klein of Pandagon is dead on,

"Enough. Fucking enough. I am so goddamn tired of talking about the Swiftvets. This last week has been the Dean scream or Dole fall for our body politic -- it has shone light on everything corrosive, everything vile, everything that turns off Americans not just from voting but from civic participation. It has ripped our veneer of idealism and high-mindedness and exposed many of us as bottom-feeding predators whose primary political instinct is to dash towards the blood, skirting and evading the actual hurdles and obstacles holding back our society.

Our media has led the way with its rendition of A Beautiful Mind, schizophrenically fighting its better instincts and leaving the editorialists and truth-finders to snipe and attack the stenographers for mindlessly pounding their keys in the newsroom. We've seen Chris Matthews turn to virtue and O'Reilly come to the rescue. We've watched the Dionnes and the Krugmans of the world lower their anti-media cannons while the Malkens and Barones have desperately clung to the inaccuracies, begging Americans to believe the discrepancy equates with deviancy. In short, we've watched the election dig up an old war, some partisans spin it, and significant portions of the media realize that business-as-usual reporting will render a disservice to the republic. And so they, like everyone else, have gone to war against their misguided colleagues and brethren, lining up on the side of common sense just as many in politics have lined up on the side of elevated discourse. But such company also highlights the size of the forces arrayed on the sides of ignorant stenography and political mud, those who continue to do wrong because they're not sure what'll happen to them if the game changes.

What is this? What sort of mindless utopia do we inhabit that the headline story for weeks could boil down to 1) was a war-hero badly injured and 2) was he in Cambodia on Christmas or did he risk his life there a few weeks later? How many of our people are employed that we can ask this? How many of our children are healthy and covered in case of disaster? How many of our soldiers are safe and returned home to their families? How many of our voters are voting? And how many of our students are learning, or do they struggle in dilapidated schools and overcrowded classrooms? How many of our poor are advancing, gaining the requisite skills and training to improve their lives? How many of our veterans are sheltered and off the streets? How many of our ports are secured? For that matter, how many of our warfields are restabilized, our jobs returned, and our energy renewable?

From the first, John Kerry should have stepped onto a stage, pointed his finger forward and asked these hate-mongers and smear-artists "Have you no decency?" And when the inevitable silence yawned and the ads kept running and the claims kept unraveling, it was for the media to step forward, as one, and give them the A12 billing they deserved, right where they stuck contrary evidence during the Iraq War and the mea culpas relating to their performance in those shameful days. But no -- like children to the sweet or idiots to the explosion, they couldn't avert their eyes from the political drama unraveling before them. And that meant we couldn't avert our eyes either, forced to immerse ourselves in insipid games of telephone, third-person hearsay, and spot the liar. Forced to hear a long-time Republican attack dog and contributor claim to be a Democrat, forced to value the testimony of those who served near Kerry rather than with him, forced to watch George smirk as his minions attacked and his cowardice and entitlement lay entirely outside the realm of civilized discourse.

Whoever wins this election, the American people will have lost it. That's because they're sorry enough to have participated in and encouraged a realm where the venerable parties controlling the nation will dwell on the attack that works rather than the criticism that matters, where deceivers prosper and misdirection is appreciated, where a square jaw and a steady voice means more for honesty than the words spoken, where partisan lies mean more than navy medals, where minor discrepancies scream liar and not human, where the press finds their ratings in war and not information, where the only thing able to knock an election's hatred off the front page would be the folly of a celebrity, and where a low-life aristocrat who spent his life dodging responsibility, failing at ventures, and trading on his name avoided the war only to become president after sliming a POW and ignoring the will of America. And where this man, as president, squandered our surpluses, destroyed our standing, overextended our armies, let our jobs flee and left our people lacking health care. And where a media who knows better and a people who deserve better might let the incompetent brat win again because he looks better in plaid, seems more likely a fisher and has a more effective and merciless attack machine
The truth that our media won't admit and our people don't want to hear is that this election should revolve around one refrain, repeated every time this ad airs, every time the job numbers drop and every time a soldier dies. And it goes: "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" "

Well said...

1 Comments:

At August 24, 2004 at 11:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Wall Street Journal editorial page today:

"The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be. . . . Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question."

--John Kerry, questioning President Bush's
military-service record, February 8, 2004.

A good rule in politics is that anyone who picks a fight ought to be prepared to finish it. But having first questioned Mr. Bush's war service, and then made Vietnam the core of his own campaign for President, Mr. Kerry now cries No mas! because other Vietnam vets are assailing his behavior before and after that war. And, by the way, Mr. Bush is supposedly honor bound to repudiate them...

What did Mr. Kerry expect, anyway? That claiming to be a hero himself while accusing other veterans of "war crimes"--as he did back in 1971 and has refused to take back ever since--would somehow go unanswered? That when he raised the subject of one of America's most contentious modern events, no one would meet him at the barricades? Mr. Kerry brought the whole thing up; why is it Mr. Bush's obligation now to shut it down?...

We don't pretend to know the truth about how Mr. Kerry won his medals. There's no doubt that he pulled Jim Rassmann from the water (as Mr. Rassmann described recently in The Wall Street Journal), and that he put himself in harm's way and deserves respect for it. There's also little doubt that he has exaggerated some of his exploits--especially that Christmas in Cambodia sojourn we now know never happened--even to the strange extent of restaging events while in Vietnam so he could film them for political posterity. Modesty is not one of his virtues, in contrast to Mr. Dole and other modern veteran candidates (George McGovern, George H.W. Bush) who did not flaunt their noble service. But whatever doubts still exist could probably be put to rest if Mr. Kerry simply released all of his service records.

The "war crimes" canard isn't so easily handled, however. It relates directly to our current effort in Iraq, where U.S. constancy is as much an issue now as it was in Vietnam. Mr. Kerry's denunciation of the U.S. at that time presaged a career in which he has always been quick to attack the moral and military purposes of American policy--in Central America, against the Soviet Union, and of course during the current Iraq War that he initially voted for. It's certainly fair to wonder if Mr. Kerry will have the fortitude to fight to victory in Iraq if he does win in November. Or will he call for retreat the way he and so many other liberals did when Vietnam became difficult?

The irony here is that a main reason Mr. Kerry has focused so much on Vietnam is to avoid debating Iraq and the rest of his long record in the Senate. He wants Americans to believe that a four-month wartime biography is credential enough to be commander-in-chief. But a candidate who runs on biography can't merely pick the months of his life that he likes--any more than a candidate who makes Vietnam the heart of his campaign can confine the resulting debate to his personal home video.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home