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.

Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul

I didn’t see the whole debate, but I noticed that a lot of the mainstream media picked up on an exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul. You can read a more detailed analysis on Brian Berkey’s blog, and in many other places, including YouTube, but I’ll give a short synopsis.

Ron Paul spoke against US interventionist foreign policy. The moderator asked him whether 9/11 changed things. Paul then said something obviously true – that US interventionist policies cause others to hate us, and that increases their interest in attacking us (these are my words, not his).

The moderator asked him if he was saying we invited the 9/11 attacks, and he responded by providing a further explanation.

Rudy Giuliani jumps in, attacking Ron Paul and calling for him to withdraw his remark that we had invited the attack. Paul did not withdraw the remark, but then again he did not make that remark.

The mainstream media then decided that Giuliani won the debate by going after Paul on this.

So let me see if I got this right. Ron Paul says something that’s obviously true. Giuliani attacks him for saying the truth. And the mainstream media applauds him for attacking the truth.

What a disconnect.

Traffic Court – Corzine & Hilton

Traffic Court has vaulted, ever so briefly, into the public consciousness. Paris Hilton’s experience lets everyone know how serious the consequences can be for a DUI offense, while Governor Jon Corzine has exposed the general hypocrisy of our traffic laws.

Personally, I find Hilton’s story to be pure comedy. First, her BAC was only 0.08. Why didn’t her attorneys fight this charge? It’s not like she can’t afford a competent DWI attorney. Instead she pleads no contest?

Second, how many times does she have to be pulled over while suspended before she faces consequences? From what I read (and I am relying on the press – specifically the LA Times), she was pulled over three different times after having been suspended. Depending on the circumstances, that can be a felony in New York (Aggravated Unlicensed Operation). She claims she didn’t know that she was suspended. How many times do you have to be pulled over before you figure that one out?

Her mom, lawyer, and others think she’s getting a raw deal because she’s a celebrity. From what I’ve seen in the real world, she’s been getting off easy compared to the regular people we see in traffic court every day.

Corzine’s incident shows, again, the hypocrisy of our traffic laws. Some may remember that NY Governor Pataki was injured in an accident sometime ago, riding as a passenger in a State Police SUV when it hit a box truck. Unlike Corzine, Pataki managed to avoid any coverage of whether he was wearing his seatbelt. Also, the Trooper’s speed was not reported that I remember. I know where it happened and I’d bet the Trooper was speeding (a common spot for speeders, including me).

So here’s Corzine, paying a $46 fine to a New Jersey Traffic Court for not wearing his seatbelt. How about repealing the stupid law? And the Trooper was apparently going 91 mph. Is the Governor going to pardon all the speeders in the state who go less than 90? Not likely. They’ll keep up the facade that this traffic enforcement means something.

I’m still waiting for all the hypocrite politicians who’ve admitted past drug use to do their jail time. Gore should do at least 30 days for his inhaling. Clinton should get 60 days for lying about it, but then, if lying were a crime he’d never get out of jail. Maybe he can visit Paris. :-) As for Bush, he never admitted his drug offenses, but I’d bet he’d go for a year or more in Club Fed if the truth ever came out.