Republican Mothers

Lately, I've noticed a trend in commentary from those proclaiming to be "right." Specifically, when attempting to point out that a particular point of view is incorrect or just plain wrong, the commentator slings a whole array of opinions about prior administrations or other people who may or may not have perpetrated similar misdeeds.

For example, let's say a blogger on the liberal side of things points out the possibility that we were duped into going to war with Iraq by the whole charade of WMD conjured up the W, Rove and Co.

So called, "right" winger commentator rebuts with arguments that, oh, Bill Clinton lied in office, and had sex with an intern and was impeached for the whole affair. Moreover, why weren't the left leaners pointing this out earlier?

In effect, these folks have become apologists (inadvertently or advertently) for the W, Rove and Co. Many bloggers today were not blogging back in the day of the Clinton administration, and I might add, could very well have been on the same page as the "right" winger" commentators.

My question is this (as I was thinking about the latest set of rants over at the Cranky Liberal on my AM run): Would Republican Mothers allow their sons and daughters to get away with immoral, unethical, and downright illegal behavior simply because someone else has done it before? I don't think so. Just because Joe Bag-a-doughnuts slapped his sister silly doesn't mean that it would be okay for some one else to do it.

How about using a nicely thought out logical argument against a particular view point for a change? It is time for "right" wingers to put down the crusade against leaders from the past as a means to argue points of the day. Simply because other people are behaving badly doesn't mean that the current administration should be allowed to slip by unseen and cloaked by their oily slick pipelines built by spilled American GI blood.