Geraldine Ferraro, RIP
It is all the rage among some nowadays to claim that those on the left are not only wrong, but evil. It’s not just that their policies are misguided, we are told, or even that their policies are disastrous, or irresponsible. No, we are assured, the people who hold those beliefs are morally corrupt, simply by virtue of believing in policies we reject.
Many examples exist to the contrary. One will soon be blogging on this site. And another just died: Geraldine Ferraro.
She probably didn’t agree with me about anything. But she seemed earnest in wanting to make the country a better place, and seemed like a basically honest person.
I’m tired of people saying that those who espouse leftist policies are morally bankrupt simply because they believe in different policies than we do. We heard that kind of crap for 8 years from the left about Bush and all of us. We weren’t just wrong, we were evil. I hated it then, and I don’t want to become what I hated.
There are evil people on the left, as well as on the right. But there are far more who aren’t . . . on the left, as well as on the right. (I’m talking primarily about Americans in general here.) Just because they’re wrong does not mean they are evil. Geraldine Ferraro’s example is a nice reminder of that.
RIP.
A good reminder, Patterico.
Simon Jester (1b9771) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:04 amI appreciated Ms. Ferraro’s honesty in trying to level the playing field for women – regardless of which side of the aisle they were on. When Palin was running, she spoke publicly about the hypocrisy, stating that women in politics should not be treated better than men, just fairly. A simple request, clearly not yet fulfilled.
So would Mrs Palin be facing questions about her newborn baby or how she deals with her pregnant teenage daughter if she was a man? “Definitely not,” replied Ms Ferraro. “Most men get round it by giving that parenting job to their wives.” She also said that the Republican vice-presidential nominee – as an antiabortion conservative, liberated without preaching women’s liberation – was cutting across some of the entrenched positions in America’s culture wars.
RIP.
Dana (9f3823) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:08 amI was fairly indifferent regarding Ms Ferraro, but in 2008 I found a lot of respect for her. Her defense of Palin was based on principle, and she stood by that principle even though she and Palin agreed on very little and was not popular.
For that alone I will always think well of her, and I am sorry to see her go.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:12 amIt’s interesting to me how some on left vilified Geraldine Ferraro on her comments about Obama and Sarah Palin back in 2008. But now that she is dead, she is the celebrated of the left.
I personally did not agree with her politics, especially regarding abortion, but I respected her because I did see her use ad hominem attacks on those that she did not agree.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:55 amShe was a class act. RIP Mrs Ferraro.
BT (74cbec) — 3/26/2011 @ 12:44 pmI am also one who appreciated her words about Palin, something that displayed courage. RIP
Old Coot (f1d2af) — 3/26/2011 @ 1:48 pmWhat do the vultures at LGF think?
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/26/2011 @ 2:24 pmCondolences to her friends and family.
JD (318f81) — 3/26/2011 @ 2:30 pmWhen I saw her speak on TV back in 2008 she was honest, fair, principled and consistent.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 3/26/2011 @ 2:33 pmWhich is more than I can say for Obama
i suspect this was prompted by a comment the other day that the term “honest liberal” is an oxymoron. that obviously isn’t literally true, but it can feel like that at times.
I mean the left has think progress, moveon.org, media matters, all telling flagrant lies all the time. and then you have the MSM which pretends to be objective, and fails to even pretend very good. When you look at the mountainous, institutionalized dishonesty on that side, its easy to forget that this isn’t all of it.
Not all liberals, or democrats, are dishonest. But they are way overdue for a house cleaning.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 3/26/2011 @ 2:34 pmI have to disagree here, although I share your sentiment that she deserves to RIP, and I do not think she is evil. My disagreement stems around the notion that an individual be called evil because: “they believe in different policies than we do”. That statement misses the point. The issue is not at all that we disagree about generic policy — its not, if you will, that someone likes vanilla and I prefer chocolate that rightly involves the tossing of labels around.
I think the distinction comes down to whether you disagree with an individual on the left over policy issues that are a matter of personal preference (in effect, although it should not be so, an example would be foreign policy) and therefore are not based upon ethical precepts, or disagreement with them on ethical grounds.
So, take the War in Iraq. Is it in America’s best interest to invade Iraq (with proper Constitutional authorization, etc.) – that is a matter open to debate. Some want a hawkish foreign policy, some want a non-interventionist. We can argue all day about which would be ‘better’ for America, but both approaches would be permissible, even if not both advisable, Constituionally, and perhaps even from an ethical perspective (e.g., a duty to assist). But of course if our foreign policy were based on ethical precepts then we would need to be invading every country with such abuses, and that has not, nor will it ever happen – thus the rationale behind saying that it is not motivated by ethics, but by a vague notion of national interest.
But not all such differences fall under this ‘open to interpretation’ analysis. The discussion of whether or not, say, Obamacare is Constitutional is not a debate that a reasonably intelligent person could disagree on without being both disingenuous and result oriented in their analysis. I would think that boils down to, at best, what would be considered a white lie. Yes well technically its not Constitutional, and I (probably) know that, but I really think its in your best interest to get Obamacared. Or discussions surrounding its effects on the budget – blatant dishonesty.
But moving away from that type of argument- consider for a moment the notion that there are some things which the government has no ethical authority to meddle in. Beyond the notion that it is unconstitional for the government to tell me to eat my veggies (Kagan disagreed if I recall correctly?), I think one could make a strong case that using government force (i.e., violence or threat of violence) to shove broccoli down my throat cannot be justified ethically. At a certain point the government has no moral or ethical authority to do certain things, and it is those that support using the government’s coercive power in furtherance of those goals that individuals can rightly be recognized as unethical, immoral, or downright evil (depending upon the severity of the action advocated for) for their political beliefs.
The problem is that when the left called Bush evil, it was not because of the merits of his actions, it was because they just disliked the man. If it was a rationally grounded ethical argument that one says ‘yes, he is evil’, then uh… Obama is too (War in Libya). Anyway the point is that its not a set of principles that we are applying uniformly to analyze the ethical status of that person, but rather, the left merely applies the label to those on the right. I’m not saying that the left is the only one to do this, but your example of Bush being a warmongering Constituional trampling Hitler is a prime example of the hypocrisy that belays the result oriented nature of their labeling, rather than even having a facade of actual analysis and credibility.
Anyway I hope that explains why I think that you can actually, legitimately identify some people as evil, for the beliefs they hold and push for, provided that such a label is based around more than a disagreement on what generally boils down to more of a preference based decision. For example, Stalin was an evil man, despite having actually had no direct hand in much of what he is considered evil for (i.e., he didn’t actually commit the acts by and large), but he supported and directed a policy which was evil.
But yes I agree that this woman was not evil, and we ought not throw out ethical condemnations carelessly, but they have a legitimate place when used properly.
isaiah (4ac833) — 3/26/2011 @ 3:40 pmIt has been the norm for most conservatives, and conservative commentators such as Hewitt, Rush, Medved, and Bennett to routinely say, “The Left thinks we are evil (as in liking children to go bed hungry), but we just think they are wrong”. Any widespread criticism of the Left in the US as being evil is a recent phenomenon. I think many don’t believe people can hold a double standard as exemplified in Xtranormal without being really stupid or just plan dishonest. Since many people don’t seem to be that stupid, then it appears they are just plain dishonest. To be routinely dishonest is to be evil to at least some degree.
One can easily point out how Obama treated people in his own party to get where he is and have reason to disrespect him if not consider him a bit on the evil side.
By all means, just because someone disagrees with you is not a reason to call them evil, but a pattern of dishonesty over 10 years builds the case.
Geraldine Ferraro wasn’t evil, neither was her opinion re Palin very meaningful among the Left of 2008, either.
MD in Philly (f0e1bd) — 3/26/2011 @ 3:43 pmVery well said Patterico.
RIP Ms. Ferraro
vor2 (5aa53f) — 3/26/2011 @ 3:48 pmwhat Ferraro and her ilk have done on America is maybe not evil per se but it’s extraordinarily unfortunate
we coulda been a contender
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/26/2011 @ 3:59 pmThe discussion of whether or not, say, Obamacare is Constitutional is not a debate that a reasonably intelligent person could disagree on without being both disingenuous and result oriented in their analysis
That’s not really so. Constitutional law as it has developed through court cases and legal theory over the last hundred years or so (particularly from the New Deal onwards) yields a result in favor of Obamacare. If someone follows the “living document” theory of the Constitution, then they can, in an intellectually coherent and honest way, say that Obamacare is constitutional.
The real argument is over the nature of the Constitution, and the “living” Constitution has been the norm for decades now in the courts and law reviews.
At a certain point the government has no moral or ethical authority to do certain things, and it is those that support using the government’s coercive power in furtherance of those goals that individuals can rightly be recognized as unethical, immoral, or downright evil (depending upon the severity of the action advocated for) for their political beliefs.
Again, that is not necessarily so. The entire thrust of the progressive position is that, if the public good/common welfare/community requires it, the government can do anything, including making you eat your vegetables. Indeed, from the progressive viewpoint, it would be immoral for the government to refrain from doing something if there is enough public benefit.
You’re assuming that the Left views government as something limited, but less limited than you think it should be. That’s not so; and if someone adopts that view, there’s not necessarily any limit to what can be claimed on behalf of the common good. What confuses the question even more is the fact that intellectual incoherence (and in some cases–none of them frequent here– it actually descends to the level of dishonesty) can characterize conservative positions, which sometimes amount to “no big government, except for these specific areas in which I think big government is a good idea”. That’s why libertarianism can seem extreme at times–because it insists on applying the idea of small government consistently and across the board.
On the main post–very well and very aptly said, Patterico.
kishnevi (14ed7d) — 3/26/2011 @ 4:46 pmThat’s not really so. Constitutional law as it has developed through court cases and legal theory over the last hundred years or so (particularly from the New Deal onwards) yields a result in favor of Obamacare. If someone follows the “living document” theory of the Constitution, then they can, in an intellectually coherent and honest way, say that Obamacare is constitutional.
The real argument is over the nature of the Constitution, and the “living” Constitution has been the norm for decades now in the courts and law reviews.
I thought the qualifier of reasonably intelligent was sufficient in explaining that they would be wrong, but I think perhaps this comes down to a philosophical differentiation between the case law and the term Constitutional. Individuals who believe that the constitution is a living document that evolves over time, etc. do not even buy into the notion that rulings handed down determine what is Constitutional per se. Even they believe that there is a notion of what the Constitution says outside of what SCOTUS rules – and this notion is what is being used to determine if they think something is ‘unconstitutional’. So its not just that the court has said it is or isn’t, but an independent standard by which they judge the case law, if that makes sense. An example would be Plessy v Ferguson. After that ruling, there was a notion that segregation was unconstitutional still, despite it being in the categorized as constitutional by the court. Obviously it was a mistaken ruling – the ruling failed to, from their perspective, live up to the protections guaranteed in the constitution, and thus Brown v Board happens. Or to the point more directly, how many incomprehensible rulings were handed down before and during the New Deal? How many New Deal rulings completely ignored precedent?
Anyway the long winded point is that pointing at case law does not really address the issue, because we all know case law isn’t the arbiter of constitutionality per se, because sometimes it is flawed, and therefore it is merely a metric as to what is permissible or thought to be constitutional at the time. There is still an independent metric by which everyone compares rulings to – everyone eventually says well the court was wrong (if only because the court changed its mind so to speak). Because of this, the fact that a person would point to case law as if it was a valid metric of constitutionality is not, in my mind, coherent or honest. When it behooves them they are perfectly willing to admit (when they seek to get rulings from historical cases overturned) that something beyond rulings can determine what is and is not Constitutional. There is always a metric beyond the courts rulings, and so to point to them solely in support of their pet project is no coherent. This ruling is based on that ruling, etc. etc., all of which we readily admit are possibly flawed, until you find yourself at a period in time in which judges actually read the document rather than build a house of cards by pigeonholing their own biases into rulings.
When we are kids we have the notion that there is the law, and it is a tangible thing that merely must be read. And that is I think the logical position. Then you realize that in the world we live in there is what the law is (what it says), and then there is what you have to do or not do based upon the reality of the world you live in. At some point we, collectively and individually, refer to that as the law, even if that is a philosophically debatable (in my mind untenable) position. There are the rules as written, and then there are the rules as they will be enforced. Beyond academic discussion, it rarely matters to differentiate between the two categories.
I think even the most liberal jurists can recall a time when they thought that the constitution said something real and substantive about Constitutionality. Now the document is almost irrelevant in that we just cherry pick phrases and come up with tests and ram certain things into clauses. There are no principles – nothing definitive. Think of the comical nature of the slow process of incorporation! I don’t for an instant think that the Constitution says that the government can make me eat broccoli, and I don’t think that most people who support that idea believe it either. They support the idea, and look for ways to make it legally permissible. And as you mentioned, its completely possible to do so when looking at the case law, because its all built upon the history of others doing the exact same thing – asking how can we make this work? And we all live in the real world here — you might think that its perfectly constitutional for you to do something, and for argument’s sake lets assume you are right… but ultimately we tailor our behavior to what is permissible. I’m not going to go to prison becaue 9 justices wearing moo-moos woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Attorneys probably understand this much better – it doesn’t really matter what the law says, it matters how it will be ruled upon. You learn Con Law as you do because you have to practice in this world, not the one envisioned by Jefferson.
Again, that is not necessarily so. The entire thrust of the progressive position is that, if the public good/common welfare/community requires it, the government can do anything, including making you eat your vegetables. Indeed, from the progressive viewpoint, it would be immoral for the government to refrain from doing something if there is enough public benefit.
You’re assuming that the Left views government as something limited, but less limited than you think it should be. That’s not so; and if someone adopts that view, there’s not necessarily any limit to what can be claimed on behalf of the common good. What confuses the question even more is the fact that intellectual incoherence (and in some cases–none of them frequent here– it actually descends to the level of dishonesty) can characterize conservative positions, which sometimes amount to “no big government, except for these specific areas in which I think big government is a good idea”. That’s why libertarianism can seem extreme at times–because it insists on applying the idea of small government consistently and across the board.
First off, I’d like to say that the fact that progressive’s believe this, does not make it so. I think even Hitler (not that I’m comparing anyone to him here) could rationalize his behavior. Many political mass murderers BELIVE that they are doing the right thing for their community. So the issue is not really if they believe it, but whether or not an objective argument that they support something unethical can be constructed. And I think it can.
But even with that in mind, I still disagree – I doubt many liberals that think that the government can engage in forced sterilizations for people with mental retardation (if only because the democrat party would die off. I jest haha) for instance. Or that we should invade foreign countries if it benefits our economy? Or do we broaden the scope and say that we care about mankinds welfare, not just our citizens? Well then we ought to go to war and be toppling a lot more governments than that of Libya eh? Invariably you find that people actually DO think that the government has some sort of limit as to what it CAN permissibly do ethically, even if it was in the common good for it to take place. They still have a line in the sand, but it is so far out of sight that we never bump into it.
The incoherence comes from the fact that these people take their personal desires and try to ram them into the Constitution to make it fit. I think a prime example of this is can be seen on this blog, with Joe Biden and Obama’s own comments. War without authorization IS unconstitutional, when a republican does it. I would never go to war unless it is in our national interest, except after I get elected. I will stop torture, but support enhanced interrogation techniques. Now either they are acting unethically because they believe these things to be wrong but do them anyway, or unethical because they don’t recognize these things are wrong, but as an added bonus, lied about that to the public.
Sorry for the long windedness and generally poor writing as english is not my first language. I just don’t think the idea that you can label people as ‘bad’ for the political ideas they support makes much sense, even if people hyperbolize the practice. Political leanings are to a large degree reflective of individual’s ethical and moral leanings (ethical at the what can government do, moral at what they should do, I think). If there is any sort of concrete notion of good and evil, and everything in between, then applying such labels to political actors seems logical – within reasonable degrees.
isaiah (4ac833) — 3/26/2011 @ 6:07 pmI’m sorry i mean that the idea that you CANT label people in my final paragraph
isaiah (4ac833) — 3/26/2011 @ 6:07 pmI’m sorry for the loss to her family. She was a brave and consistent person.
steve miller (305edc) — 3/26/2011 @ 6:24 pmBy today’s standards Geraldine Ferraro was certainly better than OK for a Democrat, but she forever loses points in my book for appearing on that stupid CNN show Crossfire which paved the way for the moral preening of Jon Stewart and his ilk. I don’t begrudge anyone for earning a paycheck, but I think she could have done better considering that she once aspired to the second-highest office in the land.
JVW (615582) — 3/26/2011 @ 8:47 pmFor 8 years? I’ve heard it ever since I was old enough to vote. That would be back in 1980. Bit more than 8 years. It didnt start with GWB. I’ve missed this “claim that those on the left are not only wrong, but evil”. Where have you been observing this?
buzz (c36473) — 3/26/2011 @ 8:53 pmThe majority of liberals like to say your a homophobe if you disagree with them on gay marriage but not Madam Ferraro.
BTW i disagree with Gay Marriage but if it passes so what.
DohBiden (984d23) — 3/26/2011 @ 9:27 pmKishinevi, your explanation is precisely what makes “progressives” evil. It is not possible for a decent person to hold such a position; it’s a contradiction in terms. Willingness to steal my property, lock me up, beat me, or ultimately kill me if I won’t comply with their instructions is the very definition of evil. What is the moral difference between a “progressive” and a highwayman or a mugger?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 3/26/2011 @ 9:44 pmAlso, how is it possible for an honest person to believe in the “living document” theory? It’s inherently a dishonest theory, something that nobody can believe is true, but that “progressives” pretend is true so that they can advance their policies. If someone actually believes in it, they need to be committed to a mental home.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 3/26/2011 @ 9:49 pmRIP.
Ferraro was a reasonable person on interview and analysis shows.
No one is necessarily “evil” on the left, although it is hard to imagine how those who condone killing babies would not thereby put themselves in the category.
Estragon (ec6a4b) — 3/26/2011 @ 11:33 pmYou mean like Barry Soetoro, who believes in putting aborted babies who come out alive in a closet to die?
Barry is of the left, and is very evil, not incompetent. If Barry were trying to destroy the US, what exactly would he be doing different policy-wise?
Sorry, some on the left ARE evil, including Barry’s ghost writer, The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers.
RickZ (882387) — 3/27/2011 @ 1:16 amHold hands?
Sing kumbaya?
Geebus.
I suppose, I been blessed, truly. To have lived the larger part of my life, feet firmly planted, in the shallow waters, of dee reeber dee nile (out back, in Private Idaho).
And one day (well, over a period of a couple of years), to awaken from my dark, opaque slumber.
Liberalism’s a disease.
I don’t hate. And I don’t hate them for their point of view. But I only have so much pity. And these days, I have a lot more spit.
The constructs, which exist in the minds of most them dear soft, furry, smiling creatures. Are why we are here. Why we are racing at warp speed (Skawty) … to hell (impact in T-minus …).
I know plenty of libwuhls. I just never talk politics with em, ever (and that includes my Brother, tyvm).
We ain’t becoming them, sorry, we’re not. But that doesn’t mean I’m inda keechin cake bakin’ neither.
F*ck ’em. Yes, I am no longer left. And yes, that was due in no small part to the patience/generosity of one particular Conservative commenter/participant (my unofficial blogfather … Victor Khomenko/B.A.T.), on one particular unknown backwater forum, who was patient, who was polite (with this then libturd). Call it transformation by association.
I unnerstand where your comin from man, but tis only tiltin at windmills … me teenks.
[Elmo will now read the thread!]
Elmo (c34b3c) — 3/27/2011 @ 1:40 amThere are only two kinds of leftists; the evil and the ignorant.
Most leftist, the “good” ones are the ignorant. They believe in leftism because they don’t understand the damage it does in the long term to every aspect of society. They get their candy today and if the country is in ruins 50 years later due to the accumulation of leftist policies well let’s just say they aren’t all that interested in hearing it or understanding it.
The evil ones are those who understand full well the damage leftism does and they want to advance it anyway. These are the ideological fanatics who have left the path of morality and reason. Then there are those who see the power they might gain from leftist polices which benefit them.
There is no such thing as an informed, good leftist. Anyone who knows what leftism is at its core either turns away from it or is evil.
Mr Black (e49dbe) — 3/27/2011 @ 2:16 amP.S.
Page fifteen … Mar 25-31, 2011 issue, of the L.A. Weekly. One political cartoon, from one Patrick O’Connor (and yeah, did spend some time trying to snag a jpeg/grab a link, but to no avail).
Image:
Street signpost, (safety) yellow rectangle, with two words: REPUBLICAN X-ING.
And in the center of the sign, between the two words. One person … bbbbbuttfoogin another.
Not bein snide, but yeah … I usta think Zip was occasionally over the top, in his slights and off the cuff slams. But he’s only saying, what we’re now sarcastically thinking (and it ain’t hold hands and sing).
Elmo (c34b3c) — 3/27/2011 @ 4:15 amThat’s only one aspect of the story. And you’re right that many leftists just don’t think about the damage their policies would do. But that whole line of argument supposes that the problem with the policies lies only in their consequences, especially the long-term ones.
But that isn’t the case; leftist policies are inherently immoral, and would be immoral even if they did no damage at all. Even if you could confiscate all billionaires’ wealth and redistribute it without harming the economy at all, it would still be robbery. The fact that you can’t do so without hurting the people you were trying to help is just karma; it’s nature (i.e. the way God designed the world) punishing you for the horrible crime you committed. The punishment isn’t the reason the crime is wrong!
And the same applies to pretty much all lefty policies, which both Ms Ferraro and our soon-to-be blogger Lee Stranahan support. Punishing people for speaking their mind isn’t wrong because it sets a bad precedent and allows others to ban speech that you value; it’s wrong in itself, and would be wrong even if it had no such consequences. Depriving people of the means to defend themselves isn’t wrong because it will lead to a general increase in crime that will eventually bite you in the backside; it’s wrong because people have an inherent right to defend themselves from attack, and it would be just as wrong even if all criminals were too stupid to take advantage of the knowledge that their victims are disarmed. Etc.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 3/27/2011 @ 7:07 amit might very well could be that the evilness will be more clearly seen in retrospect especially by the kids what aren’t growing up in a respectable America and as they try to make their way in a depleted America what is poor scummy and blighted they will have a question or two I think
happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/27/2011 @ 7:13 am______________________________________________
We weren’t just wrong, we were evil.
My sense is that a larger percentage of those on the left — and folks in general who are propagandized by stereotypes from their youth, meaning notions emanating from naivete and foolishness — perceive the right as heartless and greedy. And that the left, by contrast, is so loving, generous and humane.
In the modern Western-industrialized world, I don’t think anyone should ever worry about not enough benefit of the doubt being directed to the reputation and image of liberals and the left. Such sentiments might have been understandable and appropriate over 60 or more years ago — before the middle ground of the socio-political spectrum had shifted to the left — but not today.
Beyond the Western World, I was just reading about the way that the recent vote in Egypt saw a huge percentage of its people siding with the ballot proposition that elections should be held ASAP, and how that benefited the ultra-conservative Muslim Brotherhood—and how most of those opposed to that fast timetable were Egyptian Christians and liberals. I’ve also seen opinion polls in such societies indicate large numbers of people believe, as one example, women should be stoned for adultery, etc, etc.
In the context of those cultures and nations, the notion of “let’s be fair to our ideological opposites on the left” would be justified.
Returning to the Western World, the irony is all the fools on the left (Hello, nitwits of Hollywood, San Francisco and Manhattan!!!) who love giving a million benefits of the doubt to ultra-rightism just as long as it’s associated with Islam, the Third World, the Middle East. And, of course, the lack of irony of these same fools happily rationalizing away the ruthlessness of Communist societies like Cuba and people like Castro.
Mark (411533) — 3/27/2011 @ 8:26 amMark and his idee fixe— God bless you, son!
The comment sections of partisan blogs are richly informative if you want to understand the psycho-social correlates of the ideology that drives the commenters. Patterico’s Pontifications has always been a great source for understanding what guides an important strand of American conservatism. Thanks to all!
Angeleno (ba1496) — 3/27/2011 @ 8:55 amWrong test of evil. To Godwin out this thread: Hitler believed he was making Germany great. Think about it. He also liked cocker spaniels.
The test of evil is a different thing, and even then one may be a bad person without being the worst person. A hidden agenda cloaked, a dishonest bid to tear down what stands, a willingness to lie cheat steal, and threaten and intimidate others to get one’s way are like little clues.
Ferraro may have meant well, and she certainly was no Hitler, but she was always dogged by questions about tax cheating and the dirty dealings of her hubs John Zaccaro.
SarahW (af7312) — 3/27/2011 @ 9:11 amPatterico, you are off-base with your comments.
It is simply wrong to agree with liberals to agree with liberals that their “heart is in the right place.” No matter how many times they double down on policies that make the problems they claim to want to fix worse.
I will admit that one of the most irritating things I find about liberals is that many if not most believe that simply holding certain beliefs makes them ipso facto “good people.”
Good people believe in gun control, an ever expanding welfare state, public employee union bargaining rights, that “charity” consists of voting to give someone else’s money away, etc. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if in other aspects of their lives they behave in ways that would embarrass a rabid hyena. The important thing is they believed in all the correct things. So their intentions were good. Who cares about results?
I care about results. Which means I believe the argument can be made that my heart is in the right place.
Get rid of the feel-goodism and liberalism doesn’t have much going for it. It doesn’t work.
This isn’t the same as accusing all liberals of being evil instead of wrong. Although the odds of being evil increase as they demonstrate they don’t care about the evidence proving that they are wrong. But most are simply uninformed or obtuse.
Steve (49173f) — 3/27/2011 @ 1:00 pmGeraldine Ferraro, a woman famous for being chosen by a man for an office for which she was unqualified; the Sarah Palin of her time, but without all the hatred directed at her. Too bad.
ErisGuy (02d37b) — 3/28/2011 @ 10:41 am