I understand the tendency to excuse one's own candidate or party, based on necessity/practicality, from the same sins committed by one's opponents, but I am mystified by the mental process which allows genuine moral outrage to simply evaporate due to a change in the cast of characters.
Case in point: Cindy Sheehan was absolutely apoplectic about the death of her son in Bush's wars, yet couldn't care less about continuing U.S. casualties in Afghanistan. Can someone explain this seeming paradox?
Case in point: Cindy Sheehan was absolutely apoplectic about the death of her son in Bush's wars, yet couldn't care less about continuing U.S. casualties in Afghanistan. Can someone explain this seeming paradox?