|
Edited on Wed Jun-08-05 12:26 PM by LittleClarkie
Flogging? Shiv? Bash?
The comments in question from people like Edwards, Richardson and Pelosi were awfully mild to be called such things, weren't they? He's not being crucified. He's being criticized.
You see, there's a difference. I know because I've had to deal with alot of bashing vs criticism on Kerry. And when I have defended Kerry the way some defend Dean, I have often been called an apologist or an operative or a sychophant or just merely delusional. And I don't mean just here.
The distinction keeps sliding to one side or the other depending on whether the person in question is someone a person likes or not. Criticism becomes bashing when the person being criticized is someone you like. Bashing becomes criticism when the person being criticized is someone you don't like. And then there is the inevitable "How dare you tell me that I can't speak out when I see something wrong. We in the Democratic Party aren't like the Republicans. We don't have to march in lock step."
And as is often pointed out with Kerry, people should be allowed to criticize. It's when it slides into outright bashing that it becomes a problem. If I see someone say Howard is a hothead loudmouth who needs to shut the fuck up, I will defend him.
But I see a double standard. Dean's alright by me, but he's not the Second Coming. If people disagree, why is it wrong for them to say so just because it's Howard? And God forbid I should be asked to make a choice between Howard and the Party. Because right now, Howard IS the Party. If you're against the Party, you are in part against what Howard is trying to do FOR the Party. And I don't think he would approve of that.
I hope I've been able to explain what I mean clearly. It's hard for me to articulate, but this has been bugging me for a day or two.
|