timberlandko wrote:Iverson's declaration that The Republican Party would denounce any Republican presidential ad comparing Democrats to Hitler is quite to the point, which point being that the Republicans did not compare Democrats to Hitler but rather pointed out in their own ad through use of the MoveOn-sourced ad that among those championing the Democratic Party's cause were some that specifically and unambiguosly compared The Incumbent to Hitler. Cheapshots both ways, IMO.
I can certainly sympathize with your increasingly difficult position,
timber. You want to criticize the Democrats for a "Hitler ad" that they neither created, approved, or even aired (indeed, one which both Kerry and MoveOn.org
disavowed), yet, at the same time, you want to
defend the Republicans for a "Hitler ad" that they most certainly created, approved, and aired (and you can still view it by going to the official
Bush-Cheney website). The finely drawn distinctions that you need to make (e.g. the Democrats' [sic] Hitler ad criticized
THE PRESIDENT -- as if that's somehow worthy of particular reproach) look, to all but the most partisan eye, like the lame, pathetic rationalizations that they actually are.
And now you've backed yourself into a logical corner: your rather empty concession that both ads were "cheapshots" suggests that they were
comparable cheapshots, even though one was fired by an individual with no connection to the Democratic party or the Kerry campaign, while the other was fired with the full knowledge and support of the president of the United States. Surely, if we are to condemn "cheapshots," we should at least consider the status of the shooter and the size of the weapon.
But I have no particular interest in seeing you make even more futile efforts to wriggle out of your impossible position,
timber. All things considered, you seem to be a decent enough fellow, and, unless you wish to prolong it, I'm content to leave this discussion where it stands.
