Time to touch on politics I suppose.

I was a little dismayed at an attitude I heard expressed today that both sides just had to expect to be smeared because they have to be tough enough to take it. I didn't hear this from the Democrats when Hillary cried on the campaign trail, and I can't recall any smears against their families except by other Democrats, like the New Yorker cover.

The justifications I've heard recently for targeting Sarah Palin's family are,

1)--She should have known they would be targeted and stayed at home.
-This was best shown by Mark Shields, a nationally famous commentator and pundit, who questioned rather she should have accepted the nomination knowing her daughter was pregnant. In other words, What kind of mother is she, running for office when she knows that we in the media are going to slime her family?

2)--Because she brought her family on stage during the convention they became "fair game".
- I really read this from a person on a lefty site in response to criticism about attacking kids with lies.

3)--(today) She's tough and can take it. They both are tough and can take it.
-Reagan was tough enough that he was chopping wood a couple of weeks after being shot but that does not excuse or mitigate the offense in any way! If the attacks went both ways we could just deplore the passing or eclipse of civil discourse, but can anyone point out even ONE comment any Republican has made about Obama's children? They have been mentioned and displayed several times. They were used at the convention. Has any Republican called them or considered them "fair game"?? I do not even know their names. Would it be proper for Republicans to make up lies questioning their character, legitimacy, or chastity because Obama is tough enough to take it?


This is not new. Has any Democrat judicial or cabinet nominee EVER been subjected to the personal and racist smears that Thomas, Brown, Rice, Powell, Alito, Bork,or Roberts were?

One name? One finger? No? Then I go on.

Few people are taught that in our American Revolution there were as many or more Tories as Revolutionaries (excuse me, Patriots!). This is because Tory papers were often burnt and their editors tarred and feathered or "deported" on a fence rail. The winners in a civil war write the history books. In this case it would be nice if the Democrats were brought to shame afterwards for this iniquitous behavior but we have seen that the press will not reveal their shameful conduct because the press has been too complicit in the activities and too biased in reporting it. This means that win or lose the Democrats are rewarded for this terrible behavior as even if they alienate the moderate voters and lose they will not receive long term blame ("every body did it") and they will make it harder for principled candidates, the ones we should want and they most fear, to enter the race in future.

If I have been deceived by my own prejudices I stand open to correction but I can't think of an exception by any credible Republican and the blatant and one sided nature of the smears, even while the Democrats decry the "McCain smear machine" and the "Rove smear tactics" makes it hard for me to see the good will on the part of the candidate and his campaign. If indeed there are many Democrats that do not approve of the tactics of their nominee they must face the fact that by standing silent and giving him their vote and money they are approving of and encouraging these methods. They can not wash their hands of this while supporting the ones who do it.

Condemn it and stop it or own it.