Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Democrats left the verbal high road a long time ago Friday, August 06, 2004
National Democrats love to accuse Republicans of mean, even "hateful" campaigns. But they tend to be noticeably weak on providing examples.
Meanwhile, national Democrats and their supporters typically get away with far rougher language, and far nastier charges against their opponents, than Republicans would even dare consider.
In accepting the Democratic vice-presidential nomination, for instance, U.S. Sen. John Edwards accused Republicans of campaigning on "the lowest possible road" and implied that his opponents practice "the tired, old, hateful negative politics of the past."
He would have a hard time proving it -- but meanwhile, as he supposedly was taking the high road, he managed to call Republicans "hateful."
Before we go any further, let's understand the crucial distinction between criticizing an opponent's record or his new proposals -- which are fair game, as long as they are represented accurately and in reasonable context -- and, on the other hand, maligning the adversary's motives, or worse.
By those lights, it was perfectly legitimate for presidential nominee John Kerry to criticize President George W. Bush for ignoring advice from some generals to devote more troops to the reconstruction of Iraq. That's indisputably part of Bush's record.
But Kerry went too far in asserting, in effect, that Bush took this country to war merely because he "wanted to," as if Bush considered it all one big game. And Sen. Ted Kennedy said Republicans "believe they can't win, unless the rest of us lose."
But those bits of political rhetoric pale in comparison to the Democrats' frequent public association of Republicans with "Nazis" or "fascists," their comparison of religious conservatives (as at a local Kerry "meet-up" in Mobile) with the Taliban or the Iranian ayatollahs, and their assertions that Republicans actually desire to burden the poor with even more poverty.
This year alone, Democratic candidates, senators and former senators have accused Republicans or Bush of "reopening Saddam's torture chambers," of "viciousness," of being "the most dishonest president since Richard Nixon," of being "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen," of running a "right-wing slime machine," of being "a phony through and through," of having "declared war on the middle class."
Sen. Kerry said Bush was actually "attacking the weak." Sen. Kennedy last year accused the president of "bribing" foreign leaders for a war that was "a fraud made up in Texas."
Worst of all, said Gen. Wesley Clark, "Our president wasn't patriotic." Rich Lowry of National Review notes that in May, Teresa Heinz Kerry called Dick Cheney "unpatriotic." Sen. Bob Graham has said that Bush's Iraq policy was "anti-patriotic at the core." New York Rep. Nita Lowey has called Republicans "unpatriotic" for cutting taxes. When Whoopi Goldberg and other celebrities called Bush a "liar," a "cheap thug" and a "killer," John Kerry not only listened to it all, in person, but he then called those same celebrities the "heart and soul" of our country.
Kweisi Mfume, formerly a Democratic congressman and now president of the NAACP, said recently that "We've got a president that's prepared to take us back to the days of Jim Crow segregation and dominance." NAACP Chairman Julian Bond added that Republicans' "idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side."
Now who was it, again, who has been practicing "the tired, old, hateful negative politics of the past"?
Against that barrage of Democratic vitriol, the worst things I've seen the Republicans say about the Democratic candidates is that they are too "liberal" (with citations of ratings by the non-ideological National Journal to prove it), that they have a record of not supporting the military (again citing numerous specific votes), and that they don't have a legislative record to be proud of.
Gee, that's harsh.
Not.
Oh, wait. Here's one nasty thing uttered by a Republican. Mississippi's Sen. Trent Lott said recently that Democratic policies tend toward the "socialist." Then again, that's not too terrible an epithet: Most American school textbooks (wrongly) describe socialism as a noble ideal, even if it hasn't quite worked in practice.
All that said, here's a challenge for any reader out there willing to do the research. Find and e-mail to me the worst examples of Republican character assassinations against Democrats, beginning with George W. Bush's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2001. In a future column, I'll print the most outrageous citations.
Eligible are any direct quotes from the president or vice president (other than the obvious example of Dick Cheney's "F"-word), their spokesmen, any Republican member of Congress, any right-leaning columnist printed in the pages of the Register, or any such comments reported by a network news anchor. And examples must be restricted to attacks on character or motives, not criticisms of legislative records or proposals.
I bet you can't find much.
Remember, only direct quotes are acceptable. You can't refer generically, for instance, to the TV commercials that supposedly impugned the patriotism of Georgia's Sen. Max Cleland. If you think the actual text of the ad was objectionable, cite the specific words. (Hint: You might find they weren't so bad.)
Again: How, exactly, have the Bushies been "hateful"? Please, please prove it to me.
Go ahead, make my day.
Quin Hillyer is an editorial writer for the Mobile Register. Readers can contact him at [email protected]. This column is the first of a three-part series on the national political campaigns. The next column in the series will appear next week.
Copyright 2004 al.com. All Rights Reserved.
UsaPride said:Why is it that the Democrats can get away with it and Republicans can't? And don't give me the "high road" excuse. The Liberals used that when the Abu mess came out, "America is above that, we take the high road", but then they turn around and insult Bush and his Administration, and Republicans are supposed to take the "high road" by not attacking back at them. :bat:
I hope you're right!!Kathianne said:I'm not so sure that the Liberals are going to be allowed to smear with impunity, they are going to be held more accountable, as the article challenges!
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have hired their own lawyers in response to the Kerry/Edwards campaign's threat of ruinous lawsuits for anyone who allows the independent 527 to purchase ad time at their media outlet. For some reason, the Democrats seem to have a problem with the actual practice of free speech, even after having their party chairman, Terry McAuliffe, call George Bush a deserter and John Kerry question the quality of his National Guard service. When the shoe moves to the other foot, suddenly the Democrats switch from "Bring It On" to "We'll Sue You Into Silence," quite a difference in tone.
dilloduck said:As i've posted before--the democrats campaign cry should be " Making the world safe for hyprcrisy ". It's become a bit more frightening as I have come to realize what this really means. While not a "religious" man I understand the power that is most exemplified in "The Golden Rule". This simple dogma (if you will) has been forefront in civilized human relations and I dare say the direct cause of peaceful times.
When a group of individuals or nations choose to ignore the "do unto others---" concept, the age of diplomacy ends. There is no more compromising. There is no concern of the consequences of ones behavior. Winning at all costs is the goal . Truth and responsibility are the victims.
IMHO, the Dems have abandoned the Golden Rule. We can point out all the inconsistancy and hypocrisy in thier efforts but it falls on deaf ears. They don't play by this rule and use the morality of those who do to cripple them.
A dangerous enemy!
dilloduck said:As i've posted before--the democrats campaign cry should be " Making the world safe for hyprcrisy ". It's become a bit more frightening as I have come to realize what this really means. While not a "religious" man I understand the power that is most exemplified in "The Golden Rule". This simple dogma (if you will) has been forefront in civilized human relations and I dare say the direct cause of peaceful times.
When a group of individuals or nations choose to ignore the "do unto others---" concept, the age of diplomacy ends. There is no more compromising. There is no concern of the consequences of ones behavior. Winning at all costs is the goal . Truth and responsibility are the victims.
IMHO, the Dems have abandoned the Golden Rule. We can point out all the inconsistancy and hypocrisy in thier efforts but it falls on deaf ears. They don't play by this rule and use the morality of those who do to cripple them.
A dangerous enemy!
