I have already explained below why Conrad is actually innocent. But that is not good enough for Mark T. of Piece of Mind or one of his commenters. Rebecca brings up the tired canard about John Kerry and the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth, and makes their accusations the same as what Tester and the Democratic Party did to Burns.
Once again, it is just so wrong, but nonetheless, requires clarification. Although I have little hope that clarification will change their rigid mind set. So, with that understanding, let's take a look at the two, and see if they are comparable.
First, Conrad is tarred with the accusation that he profited from Abramoff. This has since been disproved by the dropping of the investigation. Burns did receive campaign contributions from Abramoff and his lobbying firm, but so did Sen. Harry Reid, in spite of his denials. Conrad hired a lawyer after the election when the investigation began, but he also turned over all of his records and computers to the Feds. As a direct result, they found - exactly nothing.
Now, let's look at Kerry. Democrats seem to feel he should have been given a pass because he was their war hero. But they forget that it was Kerry himself who made an issue of his being a war hero, when at the convention, he saluted and announced that he was "Reporting for Duty." Because Kerry made the assertion, it became fair game to be investigated. To cry foul because it was investigated is disingenuous. But there is another difference. Kerry could easily disprove the SwiftBoat vets if he wanted by simply releasing his records. Something that three and a half years later, he still hasn't done. I wonder why that is? Could it be that he has something to hide? He certainly has a financial interest in proving them wrong.
Selective moral outrage is never a pretty thing. But accusing others of it when they are not guilty has to be worse.
2 comments:
Well, as I said, the important thing is that he is gone. Those of us who worked against him (he was never one to work with people he suspected would not vote for him - he was no statesman) knew he was 1) not very smart, 2) easily bought, 3) a hard right wing voter who never, ever saw both sides of an issue, and 4) a crude racist who had to be kept under wraps by a staff who knew if he got off the leash, he would embarrass himself.
When we learned that he had been toying with Abramoff, and especially when Abramoff said that he got everything he wanted from Burns, that his people and Burns' people practically did beers together every night, well it all made sense. The man was never a hard sell to right wingers.
No statesman he, no scholar, not a nice guy, and he looked dirty. Good by me. I think he got fair treatment. In fact, the media, and I'm thinking of Wayne Schile, spent far too much time protecting him.
Kerry was a lousy candidate, but was also a victim of Karl Rove, whose strategy was always to attack someone's strength. That he did it through a 527 was low and dishonest - the Republicans never did step up on that one. But they rarely do.
And all this time I thought The Martian Chronicles was a book. Now I realize some people actually do get their news from Mars.
(Mark— What does a subscription cost in US dollars? Do I have to know Martian or can I get an English language version?)
Post a Comment