|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! Subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list. The "What is the Deal?" Deal-of-the-Week: Cookie Of The Month Club - Join Now! August 29, 2004 What is the Deal with Blind Partisanship? By Jan A. Larson In this election year, it isn't hard to find many examples of partisanship. Even in non-election years, there is plenty of partisanship to go around in Washington. I've always been amazed that so many in the House and the Senate, successful, powerful people all, so often vote along party lines. There is virtually no possible way that all of those people think so much alike on each and every issue. Of course they don't all think alike. They take the "party line" in order to "get along" and receive favors from their colleagues and the party. Such partisanship rarely serves the public interest. The ability for partisans to think and reason before coming to a conclusion is severely compromised in such an environment. Partisanship blinds more than just the Washington politicians. I've not seen a clearer example of this than in an August 26 editorial by Egbert F. Bhatty that appeared in the Washington Dispatch. The blind partisanship that Mr. Bhatty demonstrates is crystal clear if one considers the "facts" that he presents. Bhatty loses all credibility and his partisanship appears when he asserts that the President "refused" to go to Viet Nam. That is simply a lie. No one except those that fled to Canada got the chance to "refuse" going to Viet Nam if that is where they were told to go. The President served in the National Guard and no matter how much anti-Bush partisans would love to find something scandalous with that, there just isn't anything wrong about serving in the National Guard. The main point of Bhatty's piece was to berate the President for not welcoming uninvited former Senator, Max Cleland, to his Crawford, Texas ranch. Bhatty rails, that the President, " ... refuses to accept a petition from a member of the public!" I wonder what would happen if Mr. Bhatty decided to go to Crawford and demand to see the President. I would offer that he, also a member of the "public" would be similarly refused. The President, of course, is under no obligation to entertain anyone that just "pops in" especially anyone that shows up for no other purpose than political grandstanding, as was the case with Cleland. Bhatty's partisanship shows through when he suggests that the President should have accepted Cleland's letter that asks that Bush denounce the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans as "character assassination." Well, Bhatty (and John Kerry) might think that is all those claims represent, but according to polls released on the same day as Bhatty's article was published, it seems that there are plenty of Americans that don't dismiss the claims of those 250 veterans out of hand. To do so is intellectually dishonest, but a good partisan never lets intellect get in the way of making a point. Bhatty claims that the President has a "bad conscience" about his service during the Viet Nam era. Well, maybe I'm wrong after all. Anyone with that much insight into the President's conscience probably could walk up and hand him a petition anytime the mood struck. Mr. Bhatty says the Swift Boat effect is fading. The poll numbers suggest otherwise, but apparently Bhatty doesn't believe the polls. Bhatty's partisanship makes it easy for him to dismiss all 250 veterans as liars, but he never questions John Kerry's accounts. A very telling indicator of Bhatty's partisanship is his reliance on "media reports" that "cast serious and increasing doubts about the veracity of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Media reports? The left-leaning media casting doubts on anything that might hurt John Kerry's chances in November? Tell me it ain't so, Egbert! Bhatty wraps up his diatribe claiming that "honor and shame matter." John Kerry wasn't ashamed when MoveOn.org compared the President to Hitler. John Kerry wasn't ashamed when Michael Moore made a few million dollars on his factually deficient "documentary," Fahrenheit 9/11. John Kerry isn't ashamed to have accused fellow soldiers of cutting off ears and heads in Viet Nam. John Kerry isn't ashamed to have denounced the Viet Nam war while trying to capitalize on it all the way to the White House. Somehow I don't expect that Egbert F. Bhatty is ashamed either -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
|||||||||||||
