We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Links we recommend
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons


The Contradictory World of Democratic Spin
by George Shadroui
13 February 2004

The President is getting bludgeoned by the left, while taking heat on the right for not responding negatively to his critics.

Geez, let me get this straight. To talk about Bill Clinton’s avoidance of military service and his protesting on foreign soil was a divisive, mean-spirited attempt by Republicans to reignite the bitterness of the Vietnam War.

To question the President of the United States on his honorable service in the National Guard during that same war, after it has been discussed in at least two previous elections, is a fair-minded, intellectual pursuit of truth.


What we are witnessing, folks, is hypocrisy so pure that one can only hope the American people get it before we get stuck with a Democratic administration long on talk and short on specifics about how it would deal with the tough issues our nation confronts.

A few other examples of Democratic inconsistency:

The Big Money scam: The same Democrats who bemoan big money in politics have sought out, without shame, the financial support of multi-billionaire George Soros even as John Kerry, heir of sorts to hundreds of millions of dollars, leverages that wealth to finance his campaign. At least Howard Dean was honest about his position on campaign finance.

The negativity scam: During the final years of his administration and throughout the Gore campaign, all we heard about was how Republican attack dogs had gone after Clinton and the Democrats, which was, in itself, a gross distortion.  Bush tried to bring a new tone to Washington and has spoken nary a negative word against his opponents other than to say, aw, shucks, it’s just politics, and he has been subjected to a non-stop character assassination by the media and the Democratic leadership. They have called the president a liar, they have accused him of desertion, they have claimed he betrayed and intentionally misled the American people on Iraq, charges which they know are false because they themselves reviewed the same intelligence and came to the same conclusions the President did. When the president’s defenders raise legitimate questions about Senator Kerry’s record, however, what is the Democratic response? How dare the Republicans go negative!

The Iraq flip flop: They supported the war in Iraq; they didn’t support the war. They supported regime change, as long as it did not require any action or political courage. They believed there were WMDs, but now they don’t. Confusing? You bet and hardly a recipe for a coherent foreign policy. Even more confusing, the allies they want us to repair relations with were precisely those allies who were most benefiting from a cozy relationship with Saddam. So while they accuse the President of allowing American corporations to participate in rebuilding Iraq (and, egads, actually getting paid), the Democrats aim little criticism at those nations that would have allowed a tyrant to persecute his people and defy the international community so that they might profit. 

Spending too much or too little? On the one hand they accuse the president of being fiscally irresponsible (in the midst of a major war), on the other they accuse him of heartlessly trying to destroy programs for the disadvantaged. In fact, the president has tried to find a healthy middle ground, spending too much here and there, but also trying to build incentives and privatization into his proposals that would relieve the American taxpayers over time.

The homeless conspiracy: And while we are at it, perhaps the time has come to investigate what might be the most remarkable conspiracy of our time. Apparently, there is an army of homeless people that is on the Democratic payroll. As soon as a Republican becomes president, they rush onto the streets of America. As soon as a Democrat becomes president, they disappear even though there has been no change in policy. Where do they go? Where are the Democrats keeping them? This could make our holding of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay a minor issue in comparison, if the media would do a little digging.

Corporate scandals: Same is true of corporate scandals, actually. I find it remarkable that Enron and other corrupt corporate leaders thrive throughout the Clinton years, including hanging out with Clinton, but within months of taking office somehow years of misbehavior under Clinton’s watch becomes evidence of Bush’s lenience toward big corporations.

The recession: And finally, as we all know, the economic downturn did not start under Bush. The market was increasingly volatile before Bush ever took office, and an economic downturn was seen and predicted while Clinton occupied the White House. A fair-minded person understands, of course, that President Clinton is probably not personally responsible for the recession, but as long as Democrats want to assign responsibility, I say pin the tail on the donkey.

We all know that politics is politics. Republicans have played these games themselves from time to time. President Bush has stayed true to his commitment to not engage in a lot of partisan sniping. The result is that he is getting bludgeoned by the left, while taking heat on the right for not responding negatively to his critics.

The political discourse on the Democratic side during a time of war, in a post 9/11 world is nothing short of shameful. And it would be a shame if the American electorate does not pass judgment on the quality and tenor of this rhetoric come November.

George Shadroui has been published in more than two dozen newspapers and magazines, including National Review and Frontpagemag.com

Email George Shadroui

Send this Article to a Friend