Gordon and Ollie

I was just on the way back home and was listening to The Steve Gill Show on and off (I would put up with callers as much as I could until I had to turn the radio off for a few minutes), and his guest was Oliver North. Ollie was going on about those loonie liberals, Madeline (Not-so-bright as Steve called her) Albright, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark (who he called something along the lines of an armchair brigadier). He was wondering how they could even consider that the capture of Saddam might not make Americans safer, or that Albright could even float the possibility that the Administration knew where Saddam was or had him already and were just waiting on the proper moment to publicize it (Stephen Grant suggests that they are using it to smokescreen the Halliburton flap and I think he may be right).

This got me to thinking along different lines. What does it say about the right that two of their big talking heads: Ollie and G. G. Liddy are both convicted criminals? Does it help that a third, Rush Limbaugh, is involved in illegal drugs? Doesn't this bespeak of a little bit of a double standard?

Clinton lies about an affair, but Ollie sells guns to the Iranians and then uses it to fund the Contras and this is viewed as a minor transgression. He was, after all, just following orders (Clinton was following orders as well, they were just communiques from his pants).

I can at least respect Gordon, he may be a crook, but he doesn't lie about it (at least not that he's been caught on). I don't get any of that from Ollie or Rush. Ollie finds it laughable that the capture of Saddam doesn't make us any safer, but I know for sure what didn't make us any safer, selling arms to the Iranians.

I'm not sure what my point is.

Why couldn't the GOP have run McCain for president? I would have voted for him, now if the GOP are to be listened to, I'll have to vote for Dean, who I don't find very trustworthy.

Why can't the Democrats run McCain for president? I'd still vote for him.