The Point Of It All
…When conservatives act in a hypocritical manner, violating their own principles, they go astray and screw up their lives. When liberals, on the other hand, act hypocritically, they usually are also acting reasonably. They find their principles hard to follow in their own lives in part because their principles are wrong.
He's talking about the incident where John Edwards sent a flunky lackey volunteer to get him a PlayStation 3. The volunteer tried to get one at Wal-Mart. That "evil, beastly" company that Edwards likes to excoriate.
This case is a good example. Edwards recited the very silly liberal critique of Wal-Mart as a threat to low-income people. His aide, however, when charged with buying the Senator a PS3, quite reasonably went to Wal-Mart because he knew he would get the best price there. Which is, of course, why Wal-Mart is one of the greatest boons to people of modest means in recent history. Edwards should learn from his aide, not criticize him.
In other words, hypocrisy rules are in effect.
By crosspatch, Sunday, 19 November , 2006 @ 4:02 am
Thing is, I don’t hear them rail about the big movie studios the way I hear them rant about the big box stores. Would be interesting to hear the Democrats come out in favor of lower cost movies and government incentives to smaller independent movie makers. Never happen though.
Hey, why don’t they come out against the major record labels and television networks too? And hey, what about the huge communications cartels in this country. Not a chance. They know which side their bread is buttered on.
By Marc us Vale I us, Sunday, 19 November , 2006 @ 9:42 am
It looks more like the US explaining why Afghanistan was just one big Kennedy party for some Congressional Agenc(ies)’ flunkies:
Republicans are upset that the money went to dems through traditionally dem organizations and people. Alot of it had to do with Shayes on the Intelligence Committee who could pressure Bush and even managed an Iraqi timeline from Bush.
The funding for the wars went through alot of dem organizations who used traditional dem tactics. Pelosi is from California and they have always approved of ‘little journeys’ for those who ’serve.’ What has people upset is the money that went that way and the fact that the entire war in, for example, Afghanistan, can be seen as a ‘little journey’ for people who were affiiliated with Kennedy. The money was alot. USAID was controlled by the Intelligence committe more than Bush, making Shayes very powerful. USAID funds, traditionally CIA, followed the ‘little journey’ program, like California and dems, and both agencies that were created by Congress did what they have always done; followed a pattern. In this case it was a Kennedy type pattern that got alot of money for dems who work in the wars through non military aarangements. Dems, California,and the CIA shouldn’t be embarrassed as this is the usual pattern for a CIA operations officer under cover ‘making’ what has been ’successful’ to justify how they got where they are by ‘buying’ there way there-it’s another traditional pattern, not the ‘buy your way there.’
The money went to Dems from ‘friends’ and the pattern from the intelligence committee, to CIA, to USAID, to NGOs, to the people who received the money can be followed to traditionally dems orgs and people who worked there with histories through the two agencies created by Congress - and those who were the people who could get the money out of USAID-dems who were seen as owed and paid in a fashion they can understand, although most consider this a corruption pattern.
Republicans shouldn’t be upset that alot of the war money went to and thorough dems because it was handled in a fashion that has long been considered that of dems and not Republicans, although Americnas pay, whether they know it or not, everyday for the tradional dem and CIA pattern. It is not fair to hide behind the past and pay only those who were part of the past while hiding the fact that everything to get there was ‘bought.’