When is a crusader a crusader and when is he just a clown? Depends on who's judging.
The New York Times just lionized Sidney Zion as a crusader. And I think they're right. And looking back at his life just passed, he was a hell of a relentless crusader at that.
This journalist who turned his daughter's needless death at a New York hospital into a personal mission to reduce doctors' hours to avoid fatigue and mistakes, deserves being called a crusader.
But all of a sudden it got me thinking.
Sidney's a crusader because of a personal agenda The New York Times found worthy. But Jack Kemp is not because of a personal agenda The New York Times and others in the media did not find worthy?
When Jack died, he wasn't called a crusader. He was all but called a kook. But at least an amiable one... described as an unshaken devote of supply side economics later proven unreliable.
So Sidney's a crusader and Jack is not.
Last time I checked, we can't pick and choose our crusaders. Or crusades. Either you crusade for a cause or you do not. Who are we or anyone to editorialize on the crusade? I think Sidney Zion was a crusader...who did a lot of good. I also think Jack was a crusader...who did a lot of good.
Crusaders shouldn't be defined by their cause, or their party. The media can't pick and choose what crusades it likes. Or crusaders it likes more. I know, I know, this is a silly thing. But I thought it was an important thing.
Just like fair and balanced is deemed wrong if it dares to say big government is bad. But fair and balanced is right if it says big government is good, and it's those evil tax cuts that are bad.
You get my point? You can't pick and choose your crusades. Or your crusaders. Just that they made a difference. Whether you liked them... or not.
— Watch Neil Cavuto weekdays at 4 p.m. ET on "Your World with Cavuto" and send your comments to email@example.com