Bill Kristol: Hypocrit Extraordinaire
At the risk of ruffling a few feathers and irritating a mod or two I cannot stand by and watch Republicans violate their own credo regarding the politicization of a famous politician's death. Bill Kristol is the most respected moutpiece for the GOP and his POV is universally heralded by its membership. Therefore, his flip-flop is worthy of serious discussion...
Fox News pundit Bill Kristol has a slightly different view on how pols should handle Reagan's death, compared to Paul Wellstone's.
Here's Kristol yesterday on Fox News Sunday:
And here's Kristol on the 10/30/02 edition of Fox News' On The Record With Greta Van Susteren, debating The Nation's David Corn:
The rank hypocrisy speaks for itself.
Fox News pundit Bill Kristol has a slightly different view on how pols should handle Reagan's death, compared to Paul Wellstone's.
Here's Kristol yesterday on Fox News Sunday:
Quote:
[b]KRISTOL: I think [Ronald Reagan] could have an impact if the Bush campaign has the nerve to make it have an impact.
John Kerry said at the 1988 Democratic convention, speaking on behalf of his fellow Massachusetts liberal Democrat Michael Dukakis,?that the Reagan presidency was a period of "moral darkness".
Now?no one wants to politicize the death of a recent president.
But you know what? The Bush campaign should.
And they should, in my view, they should go up with an ad next week?a very respectful ad about President Reagan and say:
"We have a disagreement. George W. Bush was a Reaganite. John Kerry thought that the Reagan presidency was a period of 'moral darkness'.
[b]KRISTOL: I think [Ronald Reagan] could have an impact if the Bush campaign has the nerve to make it have an impact.
John Kerry said at the 1988 Democratic convention, speaking on behalf of his fellow Massachusetts liberal Democrat Michael Dukakis,?that the Reagan presidency was a period of "moral darkness".
Now?no one wants to politicize the death of a recent president.
But you know what? The Bush campaign should.
And they should, in my view, they should go up with an ad next week?a very respectful ad about President Reagan and say:
"We have a disagreement. George W. Bush was a Reaganite. John Kerry thought that the Reagan presidency was a period of 'moral darkness'.
And here's Kristol on the 10/30/02 edition of Fox News' On The Record With Greta Van Susteren, debating The Nation's David Corn:
Quote:
KRISTOL: No, no, no! Wait, wait!?When Rick Kahn said, "We can redeem the sacrifice of Paul Wellstone's life if you help win this election with Walter Mondale," that's a little crazy.
I mean, you can't redeem the sacrifice of Paul Wellstone's life by electing Walter Mondale.
So there's a kind of?politicization of things like death, which is a little weird.
For the left, the personal is political. And I think you did see that in this memorial service.
KRISTOL: No, no, no! Wait, wait!?When Rick Kahn said, "We can redeem the sacrifice of Paul Wellstone's life if you help win this election with Walter Mondale," that's a little crazy.
I mean, you can't redeem the sacrifice of Paul Wellstone's life by electing Walter Mondale.
So there's a kind of?politicization of things like death, which is a little weird.
For the left, the personal is political. And I think you did see that in this memorial service.
The rank hypocrisy speaks for itself.
Comments
politicize it, but make sure that you include Ronny Reagan's Interview from right after the start of the Iraq war about comparing Bush to his father
RONNY"S INTERVIEW (FLASH thingy to click through)
some great quotes:
"The Bush people have no right to speak for my father, particularly because of the position he's in now," he said during a recent interview with Salon. "Yes, some of the current policies are an extension of the '80s. But the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."
"The big elephant sitting in the corner is that George W. Bush is simply unqualified for the job... What's his accomplishment? That he's no longer an obnoxious drunk?"
But my father was a man -- that's the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush."
"Nine-11 gave the Bush people carte blanche to carry out their extreme agenda -- and they didn't hesitate for a moment to use it. I mean, by 9/12 Rumsfeld was saying, 'Let's hit Iraq.' They've used the war on terror to justify everything from tax cuts to Alaska oil drilling."
He had no thought that America should be the world's policeman. I know that for a fact from conversations I had with him. He believed there must be an international force to intervene where great human tragedy was occurring. [ . . . ]
"Now George and Dick and Rummy and Wolfy all have a very different idea about America's role in the world. It was laid out by [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz back in '92 -- Iraq is the center of the Middle East, its axis, and it's of such geo-strategic importance that we can't leave it in the hands of Saddam. We need to forcibly change that regime and use Iraq as a forward base for American democracy, setting up a domino effect in the region, and so on. My father, on the other hand, was well aware of the messiness of the Middle East, particularly after [the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in] Lebanon."
"We stand to lose more people in the next months of occupation than we lost in the weeks of war. One of the reasons we escaped largely unscathed so far was because our military moved so fast. But now we're sitting targets -- we have to establish bases, patrol the streets, guard checkpoints. We're sitting targets for suicide bombers and other terrorists."
--with forsight: remember this was just after the fall of Baghdad.
I would not have thought it relevant, but with his articulate and beautiful speech and his inside insights, I think this guy has Bush's number . . .
Let them politicize it . . . but let them see how Bush really compares.
Does their hypocrisy know no bounds?
But some here say hypocrisy runs in both circles. Ok. Does that mean liberals are supposed to just take it and not return fire? That's what some of you are suggesting, right? "Hypocrisy is very common among politicians."
I just want to make sure I have it straight from the folks on the right:
1. When Reagan was alive it was considered rude and obnoxious to criticise him because he was suffering from Alzheimers.
2. TV movies that are openly critical of Reagan are out of bounds.
3. Now that Reagan is dead it is still considered rude and obnoxious to criticise him because...he's dead and he can't defend himself.
4. Democrats are considered shrill and un-patriotic when using a memorial as a rally.
5. Using a eighteen year old quote from Kerry criticising Reagan, when a nation is still mourning that president's death, is...fair game.
Do I have it straight?
Originally posted by Northgate
The point here is that Republicans were outraged, OUTRAGED, over Wellstone memorial, which was a non-event. Even if the Wellstone memorial was as egregious as many here claim and their outrage genuine, where do they get off proposing similar measures.
Does their hypocrisy know no bounds?
But some here say hypocrisy runs in both circles. Ok. Does that mean liberals are supposed to just take it and not return fire? That's what some of you are suggesting, right? "Hypocrisy is very common among politicians."
I just want to make sure I have it straight from the folks on the right:
1. When Reagan was alive it was considered rude and obnoxious to criticise him because he was suffering from Alzheimers.
2. TV movies that are openly critical of Reagan are out of bounds.
3. Now that Reagan is dead it is still considered rude and obnoxious to criticise him because...he's dead and he can't defend himself.
4. Democrats are considered shrill and un-patriotic when using a memorial as a rally.
5. Using a eighteen year old quote from Kerry criticising Reagan, when a nation is still mourning that president's death, is...fair game.
Do I have it straight?
You can't get that straight . . . its bent to begin with . . .
Originally posted by Northgate
Right now there are probably several wingers on this board, reading this thread and ... giggling their evil laugh while wringing their twisted hands.
You are such an idiot.
Originally posted by Northgate
The point here is that Republicans were outraged, OUTRAGED, over Wellstone memorial, which was a non-event. Even if the Wellstone memorial was as egregious as many here claim and their outrage genuine, where do they get off proposing similar measures.
Does their hypocrisy know no bounds?
But some here say hypocrisy runs in both circles. Ok. Does that mean liberals are supposed to just take it and not return fire? That's what some of you are suggesting, right? "Hypocrisy is very common among politicians."
I just want to make sure I have it straight from the folks on the right:
1. When Reagan was alive it was considered rude and obnoxious to criticise him because he was suffering from Alzheimers.
2. TV movies that are openly critical of Reagan are out of bounds.
3. Now that Reagan is dead it is still considered rude and obnoxious to criticise him because...he's dead and he can't defend himself.
4. Democrats are considered shrill and un-patriotic when using a memorial as a rally.
5. Using a eighteen year old quote from Kerry criticising Reagan, when a nation is still mourning that president's death, is...fair game.
Do I have it straight?
Many Republicans and even moderate Democrats were, in fact, outraged. I watched unedited footage of the memorial...and I remember thinking "this isn't good...this is going to backfire". I never really said much about it, at least not immediately. But I was not surprised at all at the reaction. It was a freaking political event. Don't make exuses.
I think this next comment is very funny:
Does that mean liberals are supposed to just take it and not return fire?
As if the poor, ethical liberals are tortured into having to respond to the evil tactics of the shameless Republicans who will do anything to win.
Now, your other "points":
1. It depends on the criticism.
2. It's out of bounds when its a blatant lie. The public shut that one down..not the governemnt.
3. It's rude and obnoxious to criticize him during the week of mouring we just went through. That was not the time for policy debate and you know it. And, it wasn't even a policy debate..some of it was blatant verbal assasination.
4. Yes. If the Republicans did the same, it would be inappropriate. They didn't. I'm sorry that the sign of hundreds of thousands of Americans voluntarily showing their love for the former President drives you, as a liberal insane. What did you take issue with?
5. That would depend on who "used" it. Did Bush's campaign? If so, I'd agree its inappropriate. If it was not, then I'd agree it's still a cheap shot..but shouldn't be turned against all conservatives. I believe that was a Drudge Report story...that's all.
As an aside, I do think it is pretty reprehensible that Kerry felt strong enough to make that quote, then had the nerve to "pay his respects" to the President and make it seem like his only disagreements were matters of policy. That quote was a direct assault on Reagan's character and very core...it cannot be erased to explained away by 16 years passing.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
You are such an idiot.
I love you too...jerk.
Originally posted by SDW2001
As an aside, I do think it is pretty reprehensible that Kerry felt strong enough to make that quote, then had the nerve to "pay his respects" to the President and make it seem like his only disagreements were matters of policy. That quote was a direct assault on Reagan's character and very core...it cannot be erased to explained away by 16 years passing.
Well then. By your standards I certainly hope not a single Republican shows up to Clinton's funeral. Because some of the drivel that was spewed by the right would keep them miles away from any Clinton service. I guess they better not show up to Carter's funeral either. I'm certain I can find a good juicy dissenting quote from pretty much every Republican on Capital Hill during Carter's presidency...Reagan being the biggest offender.
See how slippery that slope is SDW?
Originally posted by Northgate
Well then. By your standards I certainly hope not a single Republican shows up to Clinton's funeral. Because some of the drivel that was spewed by the right would keep them miles away from any Clinton service. I guess they better not show up to Carter's funeral either. I'm certain I can find a good juicy dissenting quote from pretty much every Republican on Capital Hill during Carter's presidency...Reagan being the biggest offender.
See how slippery that slope is SDW?
OK, point taken . But, it does depends on the situation.
1. Is the person a Presidential Candidate?
2. Was the person a Senator or high public official at the time of the quote?
3. Is the person saying that "it was just a matter of policy disagreement?".
Don't assume that all Republicans who did not support Clinton said the kinds of things that Kerry did. In addition, it makes a large difference when one is running for President, and has an obvious political motivation for getting his picture taken by the coffin of one of the most popular Presidents in history.
Let's fast forward 30 years. Let's say Bush 43 has passed, but an 85 year old Gore goes to the funeral. Then, we see the tape of Gore screaming "He betrayed this country! He played on all our fears!". Then, Gore eulogizes Bush by saying "we may have disagreed on matters of policy...but we were always civil. The President was a great American".
It's Kerry at his finest.