Last nite I got into a tussle around here - and I did what some people find unforgiveable. I resorted to name calling - followed by no argument whatsoever. I was a bad boy.
I defended (I thought rather eloquently) my actions, which to me seemed wholly justified.
But I am not writing this now, to talk about that incident. I'm writing because it got me thinking.
When, if ever, is name calling the right thing to do?
What if it's true?
What if it's in response to an attack?
When Max Cleland was attacked as "unpatriotic", would it have been appropriate for him to respond in kind?
Kerry was the victim of so much unwarranted name calling and disrespect during his campaign that responding intelligently, with reserve almost appeared cowardly.
I for one, would have liked to see a little angry name calling. Is rage ever appropriate?
I know it's unchristian - but is it uncalled for?
Don't people respect someone who punches the bully back, rather than trying to "talk" to him?
People respond to Bush's old west "gun slinger" pose because he represents an archetype they respect. They haven't caught on to him being a phony, that would require paying attention, and they love the image, so they vote the image.
Anyone care to venture a guess at what the Democrat's archetypal image is?
I for one am tired of it being the kid who got his glasses stepped on after a fight. Am I wrong in wanting them to hit back? Is fighting fire with fire just a recipe for hell, or is it the only way to make a bully think twice before picking on the little guy again?
Any serious Democratic contender knows that a smear campaign is coming their way.
So far it's working - they've been painted, they've not fought back effectively. The party is perceived as weak and ineffectual.
Maybe it's time to call George Bush a Tyrant in the public square. Maybe the only way to stop a Karl Rove is to paint him as a Goebbels.
You know he'd do it to you.