Ah, How the Rules Change

According to the DNC, by questioning the validity of the President's selection as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Republican Party has "thrown in its lot with terrorists."

If that's true, by the same logic, doesn't Fidel Castro's enthusiastic embrace of Obama's win mean that Democrats have thrown in their lot with a repugnant Communist, an anti-American dictator who has oppressed his own people?

In any case, what's becoming increasingly clear is the extent to which the Democrats are the party of political opportunism. When they're out of power, dissent is nobly "speaking truth to power." When they're in power, it's "unpatriotic" (remember when it was the basest, most ignoble action in the world even to come close to "questioning" someone's patriotism?).

Same thing with Afghanistan. When a Republican president is in power -- seeking victory in Iraq, as well -- Afghanistan is the "good" war, the one we "must" win. Once a Democrat president takes over, all bets are off -- and retreat is the order of the day -- signalling that earlier support for Afghanistan was nothing but a cheap ploy to send a misleading signal about a President's willingness and ability to defend American interests.

In other words, their words mean nothing in and of themselves. No wonder they're the party of leftist academics in this country; both groups apparently believe that "truth" is, ultimately, a subjective social construct.