Pick A Defense Mechanism And Stick With It

I do have a political rant in mind, but first, a little more film theory commentary:

Vsevolod Pudovkin + Sergei Eisenstein = Pounding headache

There. Now, with that out of the way, I want to talk about the Democrats and their reactions to various stages of the campaign. I've noticed a certain amount of hypocrisy coming from the left. Obviously, these aren't direct quotes or anything (feel free to use Google if something looks wrong), but all of the following sentiments have been expressed by the Dems since the presidential race began:

- Questioning Kerry's patriotism is un-American and, in fact, unpatriotic.

- It's wrong to question Kerry's Vietnam War record, especially since there are still lingering questions about Bush's Vietnam War record.

- It's wrong to say that Kerry would make us more vulnerable to terrorism, especially since Bush has made us more vulnerable to terrorism.

- We should be looking toward the future, not dwelling on the past. When John Kerry was in Vietnam, he never worried about the past.

- It's wrong to politicize the War on Terror, and to prove it, we're running an ad that politicizes the War on Terror.

- It's wrong for Republicans to insert religion into their messages, especially since Jesus was a liberal.

- You shouldn't call Kerry's constant indecision "flip-flopping," especially since Bush has changed his mind on a couple issues since he was elected.

- It's wrong to criticize CBS for relying on forged documents, especially since Bush may have relied on forged documents.

- It's wrong to campaign with scare tactics. By the way, if you re-elect Bush, he'll draft your children.

...Are you seeing a trend here? They're relying on both the "you can't do that, it's unfair" technique and the "I know you are, but what am I?" technique. I'd expect to see both of those coming from the Party of Immaturity from time to time, but using both of them at once should really create some sort of cognitive dissonance singularity. It's amazing that they can pull it off, but they have.

Over and over again, we see a tendency for those on the left to define something as taboo or off-limits, and then immediately do the thing they just spoke out against. For example, it's "despicable" for an independent group to run an ad asking if John Kerry can fight terrorism effectively, but there's nothing wrong with Ted Kennedy saying that Bush has made us more vulnerable to a nuclear attack. It's "un-American" to question Kerry's actions during and after Vietnam, but Bush should really prove that he wasn't AWOL. Does any of this make sense? I guess it does for neolibs.

Once again, they just need to pick one. Either stick with the "you can't do that" defense, or switch over to full-time use of the "no, you are" defense. When you use both at once, it destroys what little credibility you had to begin with.

UPDATE
Oh, and remember this one:

It's wrong for Arnold Schwarzenegger to call people "girlie-men," and to prove it, we're making an "Arnold is a Girlie-Man" doll.

See what I mean?