The Pounding of the Glass

Or when truth dies and becomes replaced by "political truth".

What is left after truth dies? What are the consequences when politicans are willing to say anything to win? Why would nuance and reflectiveness become political liabilities? What would account for this attack on meaningful political consideration?

What is the answer to these questions? The only answer is that this worthless misadministration is only concerned with what they think will help them win. Consider the pounding of the right wingers to stop the counting of the ballots. Consider Scalia's comment about not wanting to damage the Bush presidency -- even before there was a Bush presidency.

Lying, deceit, misdirection, and any trickery that will lead to a few more unthinking ditto head votes. When being thoughtful and careful in prosecuting a war becomes derided simply because the individuals making the statements is from the other political party, what can we agree upon? I know, I know, you are going to say cut the hyperbole, but when Cheney (or Trusty as I like to call him) claims to have cut his ties to Halliburton which is then disproved and he walks away free to act without consequence, political lies appear to win over truth.

Truth seems to mean nothing over perception. Consider Bush's inability to speak in coherent sentences becomes "plains speaking." What does that tell us about what is valued in political discourse? What is valued is winning, winning at any cost whatsoever. Truth be damned. Cheney, Wolfy, and Rummy's lies about the justifications for war, how the soldiers would be received, and weapons of mass destruction.

How do we replace this "political truth" with real truth? Does the winning of an election undue the damage?