Arbat ([info]arbat) wrote,
@ 2004-09-02 19:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: calm

Questioning Patriotism
In 2002 Georgia Senator Max Cleland (D) was running for reelection against Republican Saxby Chambliss. At some point, Chambliss ran a TV ad. The piece declared that while US faced threats to its security, Senator Cleland voted 11 times against Homeland Security bill. Problem there was that Bush wanted to have power to fire and hire Homeland Security people as he sees fit (just as it is in the military), while Democrats wanted to give those people protection of the labor unions. Based on this ad, Cleland claimed that Republican question his patriotism.

This is not just a single occasion. As soon as a Republican brings up some Democrat's voting record against CIA funding, or against military funding, or against some homeland defense or any national security issue - Democrat starts screaming - THEY QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM!!!

Actually, this is why Democrats picked Kerry to run against Bush. All his deficiencies - from being The Most Ultra-Liberal Senator to being second Android-American to run for the office - were forgotten. They were relishing the thought of John Kerry denouncing George Bush for questioning his patriotism. I am most sure that's what they were telling each other "hey, guys, imagine how stupid Bush will look like when he questions John's patriotism!" So, they chose Kerry and for many months they could not stop talking about Bush being a deserter. Kerry ended up spending more time talking about his heroism then his Vietnam service lasted.

And, voila - Republican Convention. Zell Miller enumerates the voting record of John Kerry: against this weapon system, against that - turns out, from Abrams tank to Tomahawk missile and Apache helicopter - Kerry voted against them all. He proposed CIA budget cuts right after first terrorists attack on WTC. He voted against allocating money for the armor and weapons for the troops in Iraq. Well, as we know, reciting some Democrat's voting record means... what? well, YOU KNEW the answer! Of course - it means questioning his patriotism.

Strange people. So many times they have been told that their patriotism is just fine. Zell Miller himself explained that and so did others. To no avail. Guys, please, we DO NOT question your patriotism! You can feel perfectly safe in this particular refuge of yours.

We question your judgment. We question your intelligence, knowledge of the facts and history, your decisiveness, your convictions and your integrity. Not patriotism.

P.S. [info]m_p, is this explanation sufficient?



(Post a new comment)


[info]azbukivedi
2004-09-02 06:06 pm UTC (link)
Very, very well sad. I am putting it in memories for quoting purposes - the last sentence should be etched on some foreheads.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]yucca
2004-09-02 08:53 pm UTC (link)
OK, here's what Miller actually said:
"Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief."

Actually, what he calls "manic obsession to bring down" is in a democratic system properly called "trying to vote out of the office" and it is exactly what opposition is supposed to do. He is attacking thus the most basic premises of democracy. Weird how some people choose to overlook this while at the same time proudly carrying on about bringing the light of freedom to other countries.

As for other parts of his speech, <а href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/ilyavinarsky/1029872.html">here's what</a> some links provided by Ilya Vinarsky. His comment is rather naive, I have to admit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]arbat
2004-09-02 09:26 pm UTC (link)
Well, if you read his whole speach, you should have noted the story he tells about Roosevelt and Wendell Wilkie. It is not too hard to understand, is it?

Just in case, allow me to explain. What he says is this - it is fine to try to win the election. It is more important - not to damage national security. Note, that he is not asking anybody to give up the quest for power for the sake of this security! He is not against democracy or elections or campaigns.

He is saying - campaign should not run at the cost of weakening the war effort. For example, it helps when people do not vote against providing troops with body armor - to make a political point.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]kit58
2004-09-02 06:28 pm UTC (link)
Признаться честно, хотелось бы услышать чего-то позитивного. Агитация по принципу "сам дурак" и "от такого слышу" очень разочаровывает. Не от вас лично, но в принципе. Получается выбор между двумя кучами дерьма, вопрос какая меньше. Вот бы Керри расказал о том, как он собирается бороться терроризмом. Или Буш о том как он собирается расхлебывать бессмысленную Иракскую авантюру, к терроризму не относящуюся. Или Керри бы рассказал, что он собирается делать с Ираком. Рожи друг другу корчат.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]arbat
2004-09-02 06:56 pm UTC (link)
Буш меньше.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kit58
2004-09-02 07:07 pm UTC (link)
Убедительно.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]irene221b
2004-09-03 01:17 am UTC (link)
And who was the first Android-American? Just idle curiosity. :-)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]arbat
2004-09-03 01:23 am UTC (link)
He was defeated by Bush 4 years ago.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]syarzhuk
2004-09-03 04:57 am UTC (link)
I heard it on the radio that back in time Cheney advised Bush I to get rid of these same army initiatives that Kerry voted against. Don't have and too lazy to google for any links backing up that point

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]syarzhuk
2004-09-03 05:01 am UTC (link)
Ага, уже нашёл ваш комментарий у Винарского. Отвечу там

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…