Something wrong with liberals and Democrats (Republicans too)
Paul Krugman wrote a column in the New York Times on May 28th that stands out as something that bothers me about liberals and Democrats, though I have similar gripes about conservatives and Republicans.
In his op-ed piece (which non-subscribers can read at the Free Democracy blog), Krugman thoroughly criticizes President Bush for the war in Iraq. He goes further and attacks the three principal GOP candidates for statements they have made about 9/11, Osama, and Iraq.
I agree wholeheartedly with Krugman's criticisms of Bush, Giuliani, Romney and McCain. What irks me is his failure to hold Democrats responsible for going along with the war. In other columns he has been somewhat critical of Hillary for not admitting error in voting for the war. He seems positive about John Edwards for admitting he was wrong.
All of the most prominent leading Democrats share responsibility for the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry voted for it. Why do so many liberals and Democrats turn a blind eye to this? Why do they get off the hook just because they're Democrats? Even our local congressman, Michael McNulty, voted for the war. He continued to support the war for a long time. Local Democrats and the local media completely excused this.
Most striking is how liberals like Krugman ignore Republicans who opposed the war from the beginning. I take this personally in that I ran for Congress opposing the war against a Democrat (McNulty) who persistently supported the war, yet there was absolutely no support for me from liberals, and no criticism of him for his position from them or the media.
And in the current presidential race, there is a Republican who opposed the war from the beginning. Ron Paul should be the choice of everyone who opposes the war. But Krugman, who represents both liberals and the media, steadfastly ignores Ron Paul.
This behavior shows that liberals use the war as a tool for partisanship. They don't care about the war itself, but rather they care about it as a means to attack Republicans. Of course I think conservatives and Republicans do the same. That's what's refreshing about people like Ron Paul. He says what he believes, votes the way he thinks is right, and never (in my experience) makes it about labels like liberal Democrat or conservative Republican.
In his op-ed piece (which non-subscribers can read at the Free Democracy blog), Krugman thoroughly criticizes President Bush for the war in Iraq. He goes further and attacks the three principal GOP candidates for statements they have made about 9/11, Osama, and Iraq.
I agree wholeheartedly with Krugman's criticisms of Bush, Giuliani, Romney and McCain. What irks me is his failure to hold Democrats responsible for going along with the war. In other columns he has been somewhat critical of Hillary for not admitting error in voting for the war. He seems positive about John Edwards for admitting he was wrong.
All of the most prominent leading Democrats share responsibility for the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry voted for it. Why do so many liberals and Democrats turn a blind eye to this? Why do they get off the hook just because they're Democrats? Even our local congressman, Michael McNulty, voted for the war. He continued to support the war for a long time. Local Democrats and the local media completely excused this.
Most striking is how liberals like Krugman ignore Republicans who opposed the war from the beginning. I take this personally in that I ran for Congress opposing the war against a Democrat (McNulty) who persistently supported the war, yet there was absolutely no support for me from liberals, and no criticism of him for his position from them or the media.
And in the current presidential race, there is a Republican who opposed the war from the beginning. Ron Paul should be the choice of everyone who opposes the war. But Krugman, who represents both liberals and the media, steadfastly ignores Ron Paul.
This behavior shows that liberals use the war as a tool for partisanship. They don't care about the war itself, but rather they care about it as a means to attack Republicans. Of course I think conservatives and Republicans do the same. That's what's refreshing about people like Ron Paul. He says what he believes, votes the way he thinks is right, and never (in my experience) makes it about labels like liberal Democrat or conservative Republican.
Labels: conservatives, democrats, iraq, liberals, paul krugman, republicans, ron paul, war in iraq
posted by Albany Lawyer at 9:22 AM
3 Comments:
great to hear a voice of reason,how do i put my house in order. thanks rich m
Well, you see, Francine, the fact is that most of the American population supported the war when it started. Silly, but true. And seeing as how we're supposed to be living in a representative democracy, in which the position of the representatives is supposed to reflect the desires of the people, you really can't blame people on either side for supporting the war when the people who vote for them supported the war as well. Now, I'm not say that supporting the war was the correct choice, but you really can't blame the congressmen for listening to the people at a time we were all being misled and lied to.
They can be blamed for not doing something about being lied to, but that's not what you were saying, now was it?
Responding to the second anonymous (who refers to me as Francine - I assume that's not a compliment):
By your logic, the same people who are blaming President Bush for the war shouldn't blame him because he was merely listening to the voters too.
I do not for one second buy the argument that members of Congress voted for the war because of the misleading statements about WMD. Members of Congress had a duty to challenge the President on those facts, and they did not do so.
Personally, I opposed the war even if those facts had been true. So did Ron Paul, by the way. Your position, common among liberal apologists for the Democratic collaborators, implies that the war would have been a good choice if Iraq really was making substantial progress towards WMD.
On another note, your view of representative democracy is shallow. We do not elect representatives merely to vote as the majority of the district voters want on each issue. We elect representatives to make the right choices and use good judgment, putting more time and thought into such decisions, and taking advantage of greater information, than the average individual voter has available.
That may be why so many voters choose a candidate based on a perception of the candidate's values than on a review of all the candidate's policy positions.
Post a Comment
<< Home