Are Both Sides Equally Guilty?

Those who want to present a reasonable or moderate stance on politics typically will suggest that both political parties are guilty when discussing the latest stupidity or outrage in DC.

Lately that argument doesn't seem to work. Lately it seems the Dems are stepping in it almost daily. The sad part is that they don't seem to be smart enough to recognize the fact.

Last week they went way over the line in the House by stealing a vote. The vote to shut down an effort by Democrats to stick an amendment into an energy bill that provided for benefits to illegals was gaveled closed by the Democratic chair with about a two vote victory for the opposition. Realizing their mistake, the Dems tried to pretend the vote wasn't closed. They twisted some arms among their party members to make them change their votes, and suddenly seemed to turn a 2-vote defeat to a 2-vote victory. Republicans walked out in protest.

They seem to have proceeded to falsify the record after the fact. Pretty outrageous, it seems to me. Especially given the subject matter.

Obama has been forced to begin making policy statements, because up to now he's just been an empty suit spouting platitudes. Now that he's talking policy, he has exposed himself as a bit of a lightweight. He gave Hillary a great opening by promising to meet with rogue dictators without precondition, to which Hillary responded with the obvious observation that he's naieve. She was being nice.

Then he said he would invade Pakistan to root out Al Quaeda if he got solid evidence they are there. Whether or not that's a good idea, it's just plain stupid for a Presidential candidate to say it out loud. Again, naieve is the nicest thing you could say about him.

Then there's Hillary, who sent some sort of politically-motivated letter asking for an Iraq withdrawal plan. She got a response from some underling that said it encouraged the enemy to make political statements about withdrawal, so she figured she could make hay for her campaign out of that response. The boss of the respondent tried to soften the message, but Dick Cheney went on TV and said, yes, it is helpful to the enemy when Democrats talk incessantly of withdrawal.

When is the truth an outrage? When it runs counter to the Democrat agenda, it seems. Speaking of naieve Democrat presidential candidates, aren't they all naieve in their belief that abandonment of Iraq at this stage would result in anything other than complete disaster? If Dems want to truly solve the problem and still stay true to their core beliefs, wouldn't it make more sense for their presidential candidate to run on the platform of bringing UN Peacekeepers into Iraq gradually to allow the US to draw down gradually? Strange we're not hearing that plan from any of them.

Speaking of empty suits, why does John Edwards get any attention or support at all? His demand that everybody give back any money they got from Rupert Murdoch, as if they wouldn't know about his million dollar book deal with a Murdoch company, was jaw-droppingly stupid.

Unfortunately, it is somewhere between disappointing and frightening that Edwards has so many apparently equally jaw-droppingly stupid supporters.

I'm in search of a candidate with a brain. Too bad they are in such short supply these days, but I suppose they are just representative of the population in general.