Home > Uncategorized > Conspiracyland

Conspiracyland

February 15th, 2004

In the forum where I debate matters political and otherwise with others, the members on the conservative side of the aisle are riding on Kerry quite a bit, and trying to make the case that there’s nothing on the issues Bush is in trouble for (a reflection of what the hardcore conservatives are doing at the national level). They insisted, days ago, that the Bush AWOL scandal was dead, gone, case closed, Bush served. But this new Kerry story about the affair, watch out! They also endlessly quoted the Bush people as calling Kerry a “target-rich” environment, as if that actually meant something. Politics, yes, partisan, yes, and that is understandable. But things are a bit extreme, especially when viewed in the context of what can be evidenced.

Now, I’m as partisan as the next guy, but at least I remain somewhat grounded in what can be shown, what can be demonstrated. When I get on Bush’s case, I do everything possible to make sure it is backed up by evidence. And there is tons of evidence in the AWOL case–most notably the order not to go to Alabama which was ignored by Bush, and the document that stated positively that Bush had not been observed on the Texas base he was supposed to return to later. New testimony and records are coming out every day which raise questions–like why didn’t Bush have to get a waiver when he reported two arrests, two speeding tickets, and two automobile accidents upon entering the Guard, like everyone else? Why was he accepted as a pilot despite abysmal scores? Why was he promoted to 2nd Lieutenant despite not have qualified? The few people who have come out to say Bush served either present no evidence nor even specifics–or the specifics they do present turn out to be so full of holes as to be laughable. And all just happen to be staunch Republicans and/or Bush supporters.

There are those that try to attack Bush on far more tenuous, unproven grounds–that he knocked up a girl and had the child aborted, as one example. But not many forward that, because there is nothing one could point to as evidence. Maybe it is in part because there is just so much on Bush, documented, with witnesses, that there’s no need to get into the fringe stuff. But in my experience, it is not common for mainstream liberals to get onto stories that have no credence or reliable sources.

Not so with right-wing conservatives, at least the ones I run into. Everything out of Drudge seems to be taken at face value–Botox, Fonda, the alleged affair–accepted as if there’s reason to believe. This is a continuation of the Clinton phenomenon, where any and every venal rumor that hit the Internet was added to the mantra and accepted as real.

As much as I think Bush is a very real danger to our country and the world, and wish for nothing more than that he be shown the door, I could not believe in or forward as fact any story about Bush that was not substantiated. If I speculate, I note is as being such. But the stuff conservatives are buying into and disseminating as all but proven fact is appalling. Take the recent story about Kerry and the woman. There was not a shred of proof. It came from Drudge, widely known to be an immensely unreliable, fiercely partisan source. But the story was believed in, perpetuated, presented as inevitable.

In all truth, if someone on the liberal side as dirty as Drudge were to release a story about Bush and an intern, with the same lack of evidence, the same crass bias… I will not say that I would not hope it were true. But reprint it? Forward it? Try to make people believe in it? No. Not even close. If there were enough evidence to cause questions, I would ask questions. If there were enough evidence to warrant suspicion or belief, then so be it.

It is, I suppose, an artifact of the new politics, the kind I have commented on before–that the GOP has become so skilled at dirty tricks, media manipulation, and partisan mudslinging that sometimes I wish the Democrats were that good at it, maybe we’d win more election–and then withdraw from the thought. But for the more-than-moderate-Right, it seems to have become a new standard.

And this is just February.

It’s going to be a long, long year.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: by
  1. February 18th, 2004 at 07:21 | #1

    I know what you mean! They appeal to the lowest common denominator (Hitler himself said that emotions were the way to win over the masses) by pure dirt, trying to get the more conservative elements to see Democrats as morally bankrupt. And sadly, it does win elections sometimes. But I agree that it’s better to withdraw from the thought, because we don’t want to lower ourselves to that standard.

Comments are closed.