Have They No Sense Of Decency?
It is true that I am preternaturally inclined to be a liberal, almost defiantly a Democrat.
I grew up in the middle class home of Jewish merchants. Even though it was the fifties, a black man — the always immaculate Devoe C. Hale — cut my hair. His shop was next door to my father’s store downtown, on a block long since leveled in the name of urban renewal. We believed in civil rights, labor unions, government benefits for the working man and a graduated income tax so that the rich, who could afford it, paid a bigger share.
Sure I carried around an “I Like Ike” sign in ‘56, but, hey, I was just a kid, and the slogan had a childish rhythm to it. And I got a summer patronage job through a family friend when the Republicans held local office. But other than that, liberal über alles.
However I have attempted in my adult years to be open minded, to actually hear all sides to a political debate, and to digest all input before forming a final opinion.
To that end, I have constantly struggled, throughout the administration of Bush the Younger, with Dub’s actions and policies. And those of his party and supporters. It is difficult to imagine that a group of people with any sense could be so arrogant and stupid and narrow in their decision making. Thus I have delved to find a nexus for their philosophy; some reasonable, empirical, even justifiably emotional, basis for the direction of their beliefs.
Given my nature, it’s been hard. But I’ve tried.
Then along come two stalwart Bushmongers, confirming the paucity of perspective and compassion of these folks.
Newt Gingrich led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton for having cigar sex with that Monica Lewinsky gal in the hallway by the Oval Office. It turns out that Gingrich, as he now admits, was having an extra-marital affair at the same time. If I’m not mistaken, Newt’s wife might have been an invalid of some sort during the period, making his actions especially heinous.
Yet Gingrich claims not to be an advocate of situational ethics, when he says he sees no ethical or moral conflict in pursuing presidential impeachment for actions which he, himself, to which he was guilty.
Hmmmmmmmmmm!!!
The other scalawag is Karl Rove, who now says the “Bush Doctrine” will eventually be embraced by history and establish Dub’s legacy. The doctrine espouses preemptive war, whether based in reality or not, and the belief that countries who coddle terrorists should be treated exactly the same as the terrorists.
It is a doctrine that has proven on a daily basis to be flawed and dangerous, both to the U.S. and the rest of the world.
To paraphrase what Joseph Welch asked of red-baiter Joe McCarthy during the Army — McCarthy hearings, “Have they no sense of decency?”
Apparently none whatsoever. So it becomes ever more difficult to justify any deference at all to this self-serving lot.
3 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
Right on!
Gingrich is and always has been an idiot!For God”s sakes his first name is Newt!! Bet he had his underwear tied in knots a few times in his youth! I’ve always thought Rove was the type of guy who’d like to authorize a premptive strike on himself,if you get my drift!! Even if you don’t get my drift, Rove is an evil ,spitefull ,vindictive BOOB!!How can anyone with an IQ over room temperature have ever voted for these ass clowns???
Well, my recollection is that Newt’s first wive had cancer when he left her. The second wife he cheated on with a congressional staffer (now third wife), while calling for Clinton’s impeachment– and serving as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
There was an article in the Post this week about how people with strong political beliefs generally attribute base or less than honorable motives to those who don’t share their political beliefs. According to the researcher, that is why we find it so difficult to find a compromise or to work together effectively.