LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

James Wolcott is a smart man. Been saying this for years...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... cott200611

That's a rather inflammatory column, plenty of ugliness to go around. I would even venture to say Coulter-esque. I can't say that I agree with it but then I never judged a person's morality based on their political affiliation.

I am not real sure how the BTK killer fits into all of this...are all church going, Republican, Scout leaders potential serial killers? I also had a slight problem with some of the delineations of what was a red state and what was a blue state. Without doing any googling to check I am going to venture to say that many of the states given in the various examples of moral depravity could have fallen on either side, i.e. Florida, Tennessee, Ohio to name a few. What is red in '04 could be blue in '08, or so you hope.

Members of both parties have proven themselves to be immoral, from the top (Clinton) to the bottom (Foley). I would think that those on the far-Left would have learned something from those on the far-Right and not sit around throwing all of these stones, what with the glass walls and all.

It would be Coulter-esque, except he actually uses "facts"...and if you look at the statistics, they are from 2003-2004. Is it inflammatory? Perhaps. The issue at hand is that he is pointing out that Republicans constantly stress "family values" and "morality" as reasons for why you should vote Republican and he is pointing out the hypocrisy in this.

Well I have looked a the "facts" and remain unconvinced. I did find the following facts from the Dept. of Justice:

5 highest prison populations per 100,000 residents:
Louisiana
Texas
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Georgia

5 highest percent change:
Minnesota
Idaho
Georgia
Nevada
Kentucky

I also went through the electoral college results from the 1996, 2000, and 2004 elections and found that 9 states changed from blue to red in that time (Az, Ak, La, Mo, Nv, Oh, Tn, Wv, Ia), and others went one way or the other by just a few percentage points. My point being that to say a state is red or blue may be a poor choice depending on the time frames you wish to discuss and can you truly convince me a state is red if it went to the Republicans by a few percentage points?

The issue at hand is that he is pointing out that Republicans constantly stress "family values" and "morality" as reasons for why you should vote Republican and he is pointing out the hypocrisy in this.

If you find that this "exposition" of hypocrisy is somehow groundbreaking journalism, then by all means post it and see if others will see the light. I for one am not surprised that there are hypocrites in politics, they are everywhere. Check the congressional record from 2001-2003 sometime for Democrats' views on Iraq and WMDs and then read today's headlines if you want more evidence of hypocrisy.

My feeling is that Mr. Wolcott wanted to do some bashing and tweaked some data to loosely support his findings. Has there ever been a study linking voting Republican with crime? Wouldn't you think that most criminals come from poor backgrounds and would therefore tend to have more left leaning politics? Maybe I am just not smart enough to make this logical connection.

But hey, if bashing Katherine Harris (who the GOP didn't even want to run), Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich, and dragging a murdered six year old (from Colorado, a red state by a very narrow margin in 1996) into the discussion is how this "journalist" wants to preach to his choir, then I say he can have at it.

Check the congressional record from 2001-2003 sometime for Democrats' views on Iraq and WMDs and then read today's headlines if you want more evidence of hypocrisy.

Ah yes, the infamous Democrat flip-floppers! Hey, I can't defend Democrats for their inability to question the administration for the evidence to go to war, but they at least admit their stupidity and realize that it was a mistake.

Ok, how about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinskey."?

Again, if I was not clear, my point is that hypocrisy exists on both sides and that this was a poor column because the author decided his opinion and then went looking for evidence that supported it. A better method would be to use data to form an opinion. Rereading the article several times as I now have, I feel more confident in directly comparing this writer to Ann Coulter. The level of mean spiritedness, name calling, character assassination, and just all around smearing of others is unsettling.

This type of column is not constructive for the national political debate. I think that most fair-minded, moderate Americans are turned off by this kind of message. It may have a place in publications like Vanity Fair, a magazine whose editor is an unabashed Bush-hater, but I do not think it is effective in attracting people to a cause. I actually feel sympathy for centrist Democrats because I see columns such as this one as indicative of the hijacking of the Democratic party by George Soros, Howard Dean, and the MoveOn.org crowd. In our current politcal climate, the Democrats have an opportunity to reach out and attract countless voters who are disenchanted by the war in Iraq and some of the other problems plaguing the Republican party but I think that the Far-Left is going to squander this opportunity by spouting venomous assaults on their fellow Americans like we read in this column. Instead of telling me why all Republicans are bad people and hypocrites, why don't you specifically tell me how Democrats would change things to make America better and the world a safer place?

Give me a break. Vanity Fair used to have Christoper Hitchens as one of its main contributors. They do have their fair share of Bush-bashing articles, but they also have had fair exposes of Cheney and Bush as well recently.

Instead of telling me why all Republicans are bad people and hypocrites, why don't you specifically tell me how Democrats would change things to make America better and the world a safer place?

1) I don't feel that way. 2) That's not my job.

I'd like to cite the first sentence of the Editor's Letter by Graydon Carter from the October 2006 issue of Vanity Fair:

It's no surprise that the Bush Administration's bullying swagger and blithe ignorance have caused much of the Muslim world to hold the U.S. in rock-bottom regard.

Now I do not care if you agree with that or not but these words leave little doubt as to Mr. Carter's politics and he, as editor, steers the tone of what is published in the magazine.

I guess I am now just a little confused as to the point of this thread. Was it to merely throw bombs at your message board brethren who may vote Republican? It is now painfully clear that you are not interested in productive debate or dialog of any nature besides smug comments and emoticons directed at the other posters. I have tried to bring up reasoned opposing viewpoints but have received nothing but terse responses avoiding my questions entirely. Oh well, I should have stayed away from this thread as the other posters have so wisely chosen to do.