Hilarity from the right

I am fairly confident that many of you had an opportunity to read the commentaries in Thursday’s edition of The Daily Campus. For those of you who did not, a first-year Republican by the name of Kevin Lavelle openly attacked me, claiming among many things that I was a “petty little boy” for refusing to acknowledge the benefits of a Bush re-election. Assuming that you did not have an opportunity to read it, there was not much to miss; it was a poorly written piece that a retarded chimpanzee could have revised.

He disingenuously opens his commentary by characterizing me as “the petty little child who yelled and antagonized Sen. Bob Dole.” That’s simply untrue. I inquired as to why the Republicans failed to hold the same standard of honesty and integrity for President Bush as they did for President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky debacle in 1998.

Subsequently, Lavelle decides to start arbitrarily drawing lines in the sand, claiming that Bush “solidly defeated” Kerry on Nov. 2. To augment this assertion, he provides a logical fallacy that describes the areas in the U.S. that Bush won as a “sea of red.” For those of us who maintain a little understanding of geopolitics, the best way to determine which areas went for a specific candidate is to consider one important factor: population density. The overwhelming majority of the counties Bush managed to take have significantly low populations. If you are still unconvinced, try searching for the 2004 Election cartograms that factor in population density with votes, providing a far more realistic depiction of just how divided this country is. I would expect more from Lavelle, but then again, this is the same guy who campaigned for the SMU Senate on the platform that he was “Voted most popular senior in High School.” Impeccable credentials, wouldn’t you say?

We finally arrive to issues of economic and military import, but Lavelle fails to provide any substantial thought or evidence to back up his assertions. He regurgitates the jaded and incorrect premise that John Kerry is a flip-flopper, without accepting the fact that Bush is guilty of shifting positions himself.

During a radio address to the nation on March 3, 2001, Bush claimed he would “keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus.” Of course, that promise was broken when he signed into law the new budget for the 2002-2003 fiscal year that used the surplus from Social Security to finance other government programs.

Additionally, President Bush opposed the Department of Homeland Security when it was originally introduced in late January 2001, but he later supported the pork-infested bill that quickly passed after Sept. 11. Our president originally opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission but later supported it after delaying its creation for several months and caving in under political pressure. Talk about steady leadership.

Lavelle touches on fiscal responsibility, claiming that it was easy for Clinton to balance the budget by “literally” cutting the military in half. While this assertion is not true at all (and grammatically troubling), it is interesting how he completely ignores the fact that both houses of Congress were controlled by the Republicans at the time. Are we to blame the Republicans as well for supporting such measures to reduce the size of our military? Additionally, and as I have repeated numerous times, Lyndon B. Johnson managed to balance the budget notwithstanding the increase in military expenditures and the creation of his Great Society programs. There is no excuse for Bush’s lack of fiscal restraint; none.

The funniest part of this embarrassment Lavelle calls a commentary, was his comment, “It is pathetic that Purcell attempts to stump for strong morals within the Democratic Party.” Excuse me, but since when did homophobia and religious intolerance become the centerpiece for family values and “morality?” Since when did it become acceptable for Republicans to cheat on their wives but not Democrats? There really is not much to say here, other than the fact that Lavelle is a fool for making such a silly remark.

The rest of his commentary is filled with worthless platitudes, vacuous high-horse rhetoric and ad hominem attacks. This is exactly the kind of damaging and ridiculous discourse that I caution against. It does nothing to contribute to the shaping of an intellectual world we can be proud of, but only furthers the decline into desperation and intolerance. Lavelle unquestionably demonstrated just how staggering his ignorance is; a word that even he cannot use properly.

Are we going to progress, or descend even further down the perpetual walkway of stupidity by calling people “petty boys?” Lavelle reminds me of a prepubescent 5th grader who tries to make his voice a little deeper because puberty is hitting a little late. Grow up.

Chris Purcell is a first-year political science major and vice-president of the SMU democrats. He can be reached at [email protected].