One of the best ways to know you've won a battle is that your opponents start arguing that you aren't fighting fair. It may be true, but it's an indication that the battle is over. For instance, California Democrats are complaining that Arnold's characterization of them as "girlie-men" is sexist and homophobic, when it's obvious that his main point is that they're wimps. Rather than respond by saying (or demonstrating) that they aren't wimps,
Democrats said Schwarzenegger's remarks were insulting to women and gays and distracted from budget negotiations. State Sen. Sheila Kuehl said the governor had resorted to "blatant homophobia."Boo. Hoo. Arnold's spokesman responded well:"It uses an image that is associated with gay men in an insulting way, and it was supposed to be an insult. That's very troubling that he would use such a homophobic way of trying to put down legislative leadership," said Kuehl, one of five members of the Legislature's five-member Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus.
"It's a forceful way of making the point to regular Californians that legislators are wimps when they let special interests push them around," Stutzman said. "If they complain too much about this, I guess they're making the governor's point."Quite right.
Ha! A Republican harping on Democrats for letting special interests push them around? That's funny.
For that matter, any politician criticizing other politicians for catering to their special interests is funny.
It's funny when Republicans criticize Democrats for doing it and it's funny when Democrats criticize Republicans for doing it.
That's the name of the game in politics. Republicans have special interests... and Democrats have special interests.
Mark: On the contrary, I don't think "special interests" actually exist. Every interest is "special" to someone, and those that don't interest you are easily dismissed.
Well, if we're gonna get down to semantics...
.. let's call them "constituents" instead.
I'm not sure you can still say that this is an indication that the battle is won. I've noticed that many democrats resort to this tactic as a first step in _any_ battle. The "You are a homophobe" or "You are a racist" arrow seems to be the first arrow out of the quiver in blatant attempt to win disinterested onlookers to their side of the argument. After all, who in our new Politically Correct brainwashed society wants to be on the side of the homophobe or racist?
I'd hope no one wants to either be a homophobe or racist or be on the side of homophobes or racists... regardless of whether or not we live in a politically correct society.
Rj: Right, and once they use those tactics they've lost already, and you've won.
Mark: But there's a difference between actually being a homophobe or racist and just being labeled a "homophobe" or "racist". The left likes labeling, but their labels aren't automatically true -- in fact, being labeled is often one of the ways you know you aren't whatever they're claiming you are.
I thought Ahnuld showed a deft political touch in his comments. He displayed a self-deprecating sense of humor, which generally plays well with the public. He got a lot of free press coverage for his underlying criticism from a media establishment that doesn't like him very much. And he provoked his opponents into reacting like humorless moralistic scolds with glass jaws, making them look bad and validating his remarks. Looks to me like he hit the trifecta.
MW: Indeed, there is a difference between being labeled and actually being what you're labeled.
I'd also like to add that labels don't automatically stick when the right attaches them to people on the left, either.
It's yet another thing that cuts both ways.