Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Playing the Pity Card
Today, as if you didn’t know, John Kerry sent Vietnam vet Max Cleland (who lost both legs and one arm in the war) to Crawford, Texas. Cleland’s mission: to deliver to the president a letter asking that Bush denounce (now for a second time) the 527 ads that attack Kerry. The Bush camp authorized Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson to receive the letter on behalf of Bush and to give to Cleland a letter to Kerry; a letter critical of Kerry’s attempts to silence the veterans group that opposes his campaign. Cleland refused to give the letter to Patterson and refused to accept the letter that he was being asked to deliver in kind to Kerry. Cleland then spoke to the press and attacked the president in a speech that was probably written before the letter to Bush itself was.
What would Franklin Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson think of their party now? Speaking for myself (and I'm no Democrat), the disgust I feel is the kind that lingers with me for days. I’m disgusted that the Kerry campaign would result to this kind of desperate, transparent, ugly gimmick. I am disgusted that Kerry either dreamt this up himself or, at the very least, signed off on it. Unfortunately, this type of empty soap-opera display is exactly and only what we should expect from today’s Democratic party. Obviously, the Democratic party is still capable of turning out fine, honorable men who want the best for their country. Zel Miller, Joe Lieberman, and Evan Bayh come to mind. Why in the name of God are those men held in relative obscurity while their party offers us mandarin, hollow, artificial people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry as their presidential candidates?
Reading about today's events, it's hard not to remember Bill Clinton's famously grand gestures and show-biz moments. Nobody knew how to milk the boob tube like Slick Willie. I can't help but think about Clinton's fake photo op at Normandy and the faked tears for Ron Brown and the smug way he congratulated himself while promoting his book, and I just bristle. I wouldn't be surprised if today's stunt in Crawford was actually invented by someone with ties to the Clinton White House.
It is important, not just for the country and the world, but for the Democratic party itself that John Kerry loses this election. It is important that the Democrats see that a continuation of Clinton-styled show-business politics aren’t going to get them back in the White House. I hope that, four years from now, the Democrats will have reversed the course they are on and will get back to actually caring about the country. We need a Democratic party with ideas formed in the here and now, based on reality as it is and not as they’d like it to be. We need Democratic candidates with NO INTEREST in catering to people who hate America... be they Arab, French, or simply idiot movie director's from Michigan. We need a Democratic party that isn’t ashamed to be unabashedly patriotic and that cares more about national interest than it cares about the way we’re perceived by the EU. We need a Democratic party that focuses it’s emotional anger on the people who actually CAUSED September 11th instead of directing that anger at everyone who doesn’t agree with them politically. In short, we need a Democratic party with something to contribute other than high taxes, hair gel, and haughty self perception.
WAKE UP, DEMOCRATS. You could be working toward this country’s well being instead of just stirring the shit and congratulating yourselves on how progressive you think you are. Accept the way the world is, now. The idea of the US as one more multicultural patch in a beautiful international quilt DID NOT WORK. There are people out there who hate us, ALL OF US, Democrats included. They’re happy to kill ANY American, and the fact that you have a “Pro-Choice” bumper sticker and roll your eyes at Fox News doesn’t make you any different in their eyes. TERRORISTS DO NOT CARE HOW PROGRESSIVE YOU ARE. We are fighting a war against ONE PEOPLE, they are fascists of the Islamic persuasion, and they are spread out over several countries. This is NOT a land war in Asia. This is a war that was brought to us. This is a war we have to win.
I'd like to believe, like many of you, that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. By believing that, you allow yourself to perceive a smaller, more manageable enemy. The problem is, it's naive. A Few Democrats know that. Your man Richard Clark knew that. Hell, Slick Willie himself knew the connection was there. But you people hate Bush so much that you're willing to convince yourselves of anything to try to get him out of office.
The war is the main issue, and you have nothing to offer us in that area. There are other issues as well. We have an economy that is on the slow turn-around after the screeching halt of the internet boom. We have legitimate social issues here at home, like teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and teachers who don't teach. We also have serious abuses of many of the programs originally designed to treat those particular ills. We have race relations problems that are only getting worse and not better because of twenty years of unchecked, incendiary rhetoric from minority leaders who should know better. We are in NO POSITION to return to the grandiose, self-important, experimental Clinton years. Democrats, if you don’t have anything real to offer, given everything we now face, STOP TRYING TO DISTRACT THE RESTS OF US WITH SIDESHOWS LIKE MAX CLELAND’S TRIP TO TEXAS.
Now, if you'll excuse me, my head and my fingers hurt.
Another one of the signatories to the hand carried mail piece was Combat Tom Harkin, another Vietnam Hero in is own mind...
I leave with that age old punctuation question... Do female vampires have periods?
Blog On!
But yes, it is sad that people like Lieberman are unable to make it past the primary process.
I just came across your blog. It looks like you put some thought into it. I was wondering if I could ask you a question. What is wrong with George W. Bush? I don't mean the little imperfections that we all have, I mean what are his serious problems, in your opinion, the ones that would/should discourage voters from supporting him?
Why am I asking this of an obvious Bush supporter? To test a theory that has become accepted mantra lately, about conservatives and liberals. Liberals, like me, it is said are their own worst enemies, because part of our philosophical DNA involves respect for other points of view. We force ourselves to try and see where the opponent is coming from. Yes, I know you can name a dozen prominent left-wing exceptions to that rule. But I'm not talking about exceptions, I'm talking about the common perception. The common perception of conservatives is that they are not burdened by such pluralistic fantasies, and feel little need to respect or even listen to other points of view. This, so goes the conventional wisdom, is a source of great political strength, particularly in this sound bite age when there just isn't enought airtime for "yes, but on the other hand...".
I am a supporter of Kerry. And this supporter of Kerry is now saying that much of what you wrote here as criticism of Kerry is true. And it disgusts me. But I support Kerry because in Bush I see worse. Blatant shortcomings, ones that transcend ideology or politics for me. Enough serious problems that it is impossible for me to believe that any thinking person is blind to them, even if they do consider Kerry's shortcomings to be worse.
So I'm asking you. Obviously, you don't have to answer. The "conventional wisdom" says that if you respond at all, you will dwell on the fact that I admitted supporting a weak candidate while unabashedly praising your own thru November and beyond.
If you do want to respond my email is bidalah@ameritech.net. In any case, nice Blogsite.
Links to this post:
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]


