Tenet Vs Rice
After a few days of hearing the charges go back and forth to me the bottom line is this - politics is a blood sport played long term only by those that want to win at it.
Parts of Tenet’s story / charges seem to hold water, others do not. I think many are running to support his views simply because they are against the war / the Bush administration. Tenet’s link to the Clinton administration bring some Clinton supporters to Tenet’s side automatically.
The same facts are true on the Rice side as well. Parts of her counter claims seem to be strong / others are weak, but some are running to support her just because she is within the Bush administration and because they agree with the goals of the Iraqi war. Some that oppose Clinton are running to support Rice imply because Tenet was the CIA chief during the Clinton White House.
This is one where both sides have similar issues but neither one seems to want to acknowledge that and simply want to argue over PR of the moment.
“…politics is a blood sport played long term only by those that want to win at it.”
Maybe. That said, it all depends on what one considers a “win” in the political game. For me, if a candidate compromises his genuine ideals in order to win an election, then he/she hasn’t really won. On the other hand, if a candidate on any given day fights for what he/she believes in, puts their issues on a public stage where they’re sure to be debated, and still gets destroyed at the polls, then that candidate has done his/her job and democracy as a whole wins. Again, chess not checkers, y’all.
Comment by Hermann the Malevolent — 4/30/2007 @ 4:23 pm
You made the point I was trying to get across. You only stay in politics long term if you think you are winning. For some that involves compromise and constant position moves, to others that means staying with their original goals / values and going on regardless of how others view them / their goals.
Winning in politics is defined the individual political player, not by those of us that watch and comment on it. People don’t stay in the political game long term unless they think they are winning / moving toward victory. What the victory is and what winning entails depends on the politician involved.
Comment by admin — 4/30/2007 @ 7:32 pm
Agreed. At the same time, I’m a firm believer in the “ends justifies the means” school of thought - to an extent. As you’ve implied, politics is a brutal, brutal bloodbath, and anyone with the courage to put his or her name on a ballot has more guts than I. They know that while the world of politics is, by nature, a world of gray areas, they also know that PLAYING said game may, in fact, require some dirty pool. The rules are written by the system, not necessarily the individuals competing within the system. If one must get one’s hands dirty in order to achieve a noble end, I have no problem with that whatsoever.
Comment by Hermann the Malevolent — 4/30/2007 @ 7:53 pm
Very true to make a omelet you have to break some eggs. As I see though some know how to break others eggs instead of their own, while others seem to believe to break one’s own eggs is far more noble then to break the eggs of others. Some in the first group have learned how to more effectively break others eggs while acting like they are really breaking their own. Either way the eggs are getting broken, the question is whose eggs are broken, how the breaking is going to get done, and how well you can spin the breaking to achieve your goals. If you think you are moving your goals forward then you are willing to break some eggs regardless of whose eggs they are. Only those that are willing to break eggs and be seen as egg breakers (to varying degrees) will stay in the game.
Comment by admin — 5/1/2007 @ 8:10 am
I’m suddenly hungry for an omelette…
Comment by Hermann the Malevolent — 5/1/2007 @ 10:28 am
LOL
Comment by admin — 5/1/2007 @ 1:52 pm