Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Sauce for the Goose, Sauce for the Gander?: Part Deux

I remember the exact moment I first saw George Clooney on T.V. I was still watching "The Facts of Life" although the show was clearly over the shark and swirling the Toilet bowl in a race for survival with the Tid-E-Bowl Man. He appeared as the lovely scamp and unattainable eye candy, George. (Presumably so he wouldn't forget that he was being addressed. This naming thing was as plausible as Natalie going off and getting hitched to Snake, who mysteriously looked like the dirtbag best friend to the squeaky clean good guy from "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" but I digress.) Who would have guessed that ambition and nascent talent would result in the filmaker autuer we have today?

Clooney's criticism touches on something I have been saying myself for years. When you elect someone to public office, you are doing two things: 1.) you are surrendering your voice to someone to speak for you, and 2.) if you can't assure that they agree with how you would vote, make sure they at least has the same moral framework you do. Clooney is right; Democrats have very little right to carp at the administration if they will not carp at the elected officials who made more waffles out of the Iraq situation than IHOP the week before Christmas.

Hence it is sauce for the goose and gander equally. Most folks are savvy enough, I suspect, to catch the two-faced responsibility dodge that Senate and House democrats are engaged in, and it delights me mightily that one of their own is bringing it to bear.

Whether celebs have a right to hector the elected officialdom any more than I do is an article for another time.

No comments: