The Daily Demonizer

Democrats.com Demonizes McCain on Disease and Age

2008-08-27T08:29:00.004-05:00

Democrats.com plays fast and loose with "facts" to build a case that John McCain owes the American public an Alzheimer's test. This is a despicable use of disease and of age for political purposes. If they really think there is a case to be made they should have responsible and independent physicians make it. To do so for political purposes not only is unfair to McCain, but is hurtful to millions of others who suffer from the various maladies they list in their laundry list of health concerns, and all older Americans. Democrats.com also undermines American discourse with this kind of hurtful and cheap rhetoric on such an important topic.

Judge for yourself. Here's the e mail received from Democrats.com:

McCain Owes America An Alzheimer's Test

While Ted Kennedy and Michelle Obama were rocking the Democratic convention in Denver, John McCain made his 13th appearance with Jay Leno to joke about his age.
But McCain's age is no joke. He will turn 72 on Friday and would be halfway to 73 if elected and sworn in on January 20. That would make him the oldest first-term President ever, two years older than Ronald Reagan. He has survived four skin cancers (melanomas), including one in 2000 that was classified as Stage IIa.

McCain is two years older than his father was when he died suddenly of a heart attack at 70 . He is 11 years older than his grandfather was when he died suddenly of a heart attack at age 61 .
The United States cannot afford the risk that McCain would die suddenly in the middle of an international crisis.

Nor can we afford the risk of dementia. 22% of Americans over 70 are affected by mild cognitive impairment, while 13% of Americans over 65 have Alzheimer's. Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at age 83, but early signs were evident during his first term. Britain's "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher developed dementia at age 75.

McCain has never had an Alzheimer's test, even though he has 6 of the 10 warning signs , including his inability to remember recent facts like the number of homes he owns, the $1M lawsuit he filed in 1990, or the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

John McCain owes America a thorough test for Alzheimer's and cognitive impairment long before Election Day.

Author Swiftboats Obama--Just Like He Did Kerry

2008-08-14T10:25:00.004-05:00

From the New York Times:

Book on Obama Hopes to Repeat Anti-Kerry Feat
Wednesday 13 August 2008

by: Jim Rutenberg and Julie Bosman, The New York Times

In the summer of 2004 the conservative gadfly Jerome R. Corsi shot to the top of the best-seller lists as co-author of "Unfit for Command," the book attacking Senator John Kerry's record on a Vietnam War swiftboat that began the larger damaging campaign against Mr. Kerry's war credentials as he sought the presidency. To read the entire article clicke here.

Also see the article in the Washington Post: "New Books Aim to Unweave the Obama Narrative."

Subtext of McCain Campaign v. Obama: Only McCain is a Real American

2008-06-01T06:25:00.002-05:00

Frank Rich in the June 1, 2008, NY Times:

"His [McCain's] . . . tactic is to try to create a smoke screen by smearing Barack Obama as unpatriotic. Mr. McCain has suggested that the Democratic front-runner is the Hamas candidate and has piled on to Mr. Bush’s effort to slur Mr. Obama as an apostle of “appeasement.” A campaign ad presented Mr. McCain as “the American president Americans have been waiting for” (not to be confused, presumably, with the un-American president Al Qaeda has been waiting for). [To see the campaign ad click here.]

Now Mr. McCain is chastising Mr. Obama for not having visited Iraq since 2006 — a questionable strategy, you’d think, given that Mr. McCain’s own propagandistic visit to a “safe” Baghdad market is one of his biggest embarrassments. Then again, in his frantic efforts to explain why he sided with Mr. Bush to oppose an expanded G.I. bill that the Senate passed by 75 to 22, Mr. McCain has attacked Mr. Obama for not enlisting in the military.

Besides making Mr. McCain look ever angrier next to his serene opponent, this eruption raises the question of why he chose double-standard partisanship over principle by not applying this criterion to the blunderers who took us into Iraq. Unlike Mr. Obama, who was 7 years old in 1968, Mr. Bush and company could have served in Vietnam as Mr. McCain did."

McCain's "White Flag of Surrender" Charge Demonizes Dems

2008-04-13T17:24:00.002-05:00

While Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have distorted Senator John McCain's Iraq position (see previous post), McCain has for some time been smearing the Democrats on a number of issues. He charges, wrongly, that Dems want government to make our decisions for us. Far worse, on Iraq he demonizes his Democratic opponents and all war opponents by slanderously claiming that they want to "raise the white flag of surrender."

To see one particularly egregious example of McCain caught on camera making false charges like these look at his March 18, 2008 press interview in which he displays not only ignorance on what is going on in Iraq but a studied disregard for the position of his opponents--and for decency: "The Democratic formula--very clear," he charges, "--surrender to Al Qaeda and leave." Such distortion of war opponents' views and such willful confusion of the Iraq war and the war against the murderers who attacked New York and Washington are reprehensible. It is exactly this kind of demonization of opponents that freezes debate and makes the next Iraq-style debacle more likely--whoever wins the presidential election.

One example of his "white flag of surrender"commentaries: "Senator John McCain of Arizona, holding a "town hall'' assembly at the Palm Beach County Convention Center now, accused Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York of raising a "white flag'' of "surrender'' in the war in Iraq. . . " For more: White Flag.

100 Years in Iraq? Dems Distort McCain's Position

2008-04-06T06:58:00.002-05:00

Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are deliberately mis-stating Republican John McCain's postion, when they claim he is willing to fight in Iraq for another 100 years. Instead, McCain was saying that, if necessary, the U.S. should be willing to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, akin to our deployments in Japan and Korea, with the proviso that troops aren't being harmed. To hear what McCain actually said, go to:
"McCain's 100 Years in Iraq."

We can thank Frank Rich for pointing this out in today's New York Times: "REALLY, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is “willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq” (as Mr. Obama said) or “willing to keep this war going for 100 years” (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong." Then in a very important commentary on much more serious problems with McCain's positions on and understanding of Iraq, Rich goes on to argue: "Everything else Mr. McCain has to say about Iraq is more troubling. . ."

He conclusdes by saying: "The Democrats should also stop repeating their 100-years-war calumny against Mr. McCain. There’s too much at stake for America for them to add their own petty distortions to an epic tragedy that only a long-overdue national reckoning with hard truths can bring to an end."

His commentary can be found at:"Tet Happened, and No One Cared."

One for the Ages: Mellon-Scaife Likes Hillary

2008-03-31T08:13:00.002-05:00

In the hope-springs-eternal-or-is-it-just-another-conspiracy category, this just in about one of the Demonizers-in-Chief of the 1990's.

Here's the report in today's New York Times:

March 31, 2008
Rosy Words for Clinton by ’90s Nemesis

By MICHAEL BARBARO

To Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Richard Mellon Scaife qualifies as a charter member of the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” having bankrolled an elaborate multimillion-dollar campaign throughout the 1990s to unearth damaging information about the couple.
But in a striking about-face, Mr. Scaife now says he has changed his mind — at least about one half of the duo.

“I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today,” he wrote in an opinion article published Sunday, amid her campaign for president. “And it’s a very favorable one indeed.”

For the complete story go to: Rosy Words for Clinton by ’90s Nemesis

Bill Clinton's McCarthyism? Not Likely

2008-03-25T08:11:00.005-05:00

General Merrill McPeak went over the line this weekend when he accused former President Bill Clinton in engaging in McCarthyism for his comments regarding what a general election between Hillary Clinton and John McCain could be like.

“I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,” Clinton said in Charlotte, N.C. “And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.”

According to General McPeak:

“It sounds more like McCarthy. I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I’ve had enough of it.”

In a subsequent comments, with Barack Obama by his side, General McPeak used different language (see video) but didn't back off. Although Obama didn't comment, his presence when McPeak modified his comments lends tacit support to them. Judge for yourself: see Weekend Video.

McPeak is off base. While clearly promoting his wife, Clinton here seems to be talking about a campaign based on issues, without the politics of personal destruction. For a brief common sense commentary on this see: The Carpetbagger Report. One caveat. Clinton's comments can appear more negative in the context of other campaign statements and activities, most notably the exploitation of post-9/11 fear with the red phone ad of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Still, "McCarthyism" is a very serious charge and it should be used with the kind of care and proof that General McPeak lacks in this instance. He should prove it or withdraw it and apologize.

FOX Smears, The Networks Follow

2008-03-22T09:42:00.004-05:00

Where have the attacks on Barack Obama for his association with Rev. Wright come from? Below is an excerpt from Move0n. org arguing that mainstream media questioning of Obama followed a systematic attack by Fox News.

According to Move0n.org:

"Reporters like NBC's Tim Russert focused on the "Reverend Wright controversy" only after FOX and other right-wing media did. It happens over and over: FOX airs a right-wing smear and the mass media repeat it. Film director Robert Greenwald just released a short video called FOX Attacks Obama: Part 2 which shows how it happens. We are launching a petition demanding the big networks stop parroting FOX and distracting Americans from real issues. We'll hand-deliver your signatures to major media outlets next week. Watch the video, and sign the petition, here: Fox Attacks Obama Part 2.

The petition, which we're launching with Greenwald's Brave New Films, says: "FOX is a Republican mouthpiece, not a legitimate news organization. Real news organizations must reject FOX's smears of Barack Obama, not parrot them and distract Americans from the pressing issues of the day." The more signatures we deliver, the bigger the impact—so please tell your friends.

"Defense of Democracy" Smears New Dem Reps

2008-03-22T09:16:00.002-05:00

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracy is running ads linking opposition by freshmen Democrats in Congress to the recently defeated "Protect America Act" (intelligence surveillance without a warrant) with support for terrorism and Osama Bin Laden. Here are excerpts from the Washington Independent's story on this. To read the whole story go to: "'Bipartisan' Think Tank Attacks Democrats."

"Walz is a Democrat from Minnesota's first congressional district. The ad flashed his face about 16 seconds after it showed bin Laden's. Similar ads ran in the TV markets of Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire's first district; Ron Klein of Florida's 22nd district; Tim Mahoney of Florida's 16th district; Chris Murphy of Connecticut's 5th district; and Joe Courtney of Connecticut's 2nd district. All are Democrats. Now their faces appear beside bin Laden's."

"The organization is using fear mongering for political purposes and worse, their scare tactics have the effect of emboldening terrorists and our enemies abroad by asserting our intelligence agencies are failing to do their job," Brazile said in a statement released Monday night and highlighted by Matt Stoller on the liberal blog Open Left. "I am deeply disappointed they would use my name since no one has consulted me about the activities of the group in years." Schumer and Engel resigned on Friday. "While I remain committed to the proud cause of defending our nation's democratic principles, I can no longer support an organization that has ventured so far afield from that goal," Schumer said in a statement released Tuesday. [Rep. Jim] Marshall resigned Tuesday evening. Democratic sources who declined to be named said Marshall was "appalled" by the ad."

Obama's Speech on Race and Reverend Wright

2008-03-18T16:05:00.013-05:00

Senator Barack Obama today gave the most important speech given on race in America in memory, by any American who can command a national audience.

The speech is not perfect. It was prompted by his need to defend himself because of his close association over two decades with Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr., his pastor, the man who married him and baptized his children. It does not fully address or allay concerns raised about that association. It may also have been the perfect political speech given the predicament Obama finds himself in. Some might be troubled by his use of his grandmother in the speech for political or even educational purposes.

Nevertheless the speech is brilliant and could potentially have historic consequences not just in this campaign, but for the nation's future. If a potential political crisis provoked it--so be it--no presidential candidate--no leader-- in memory has said anything like it. And Obama refuses to demonize. His instead is a call for deeper understanding based on the reality of race in America and how race is used politically. Obama focuses us clearly on what kind of conversation about race we as a nation need to have. For that and for the words he delivered, Obama deserves great credit and our thanks. If you missed it, you can see it and/or read it now at: http://my.barackobama.com/hisownwords

For clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. that are mainstays in criticism of Obama see: Black in America or Not God Bless America

For a very perceptive column by Maureen Dowd, in which she uses her intelligence and wit to do more than ridicule her target see: Black, White & Gray.

Time to Play: Name Obama's Religion?

2008-03-18T06:38:00.008-05:00

CNN has a feature on its website called "Time to Play Name Obama's Religion." The idea is to show that a large number of people don't know the religion of Senator Barack Obama. The real point is that some Americans are unaware that Obama is a Christian and is not a Muslim.

There's nothing wrong with having accurate information about candidates. Yet why is there so little attention to the obvious implication that if he were a Muslim this would (and should?) disqualify him from the Presidency.

To see the CNN feature go to: Time to Play: Name Obama's Relgion.

TD

Spitzer: Demonized? Demonizer? Or Someone Who Simply Got What He Deserved?

2008-03-12T12:47:00.012-05:00

Is former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer a victim of demonization and/or was he someone who sometimes demonized others? Or did he simply get what he deserved?

"What goes around comes around?"

One Daily Demonizer reader said: "On the one hand he is a victim of demonization, on the other there he was a demonizer himself. Not that corporate crime is not real, but often for him it seemed to be a matter of evil people with little consideration by him of a system and a kind of corporate ethos that promoted such behavior. An editor of the Village Voice on CNN today quoted a line Spitzer apparently said to a target of investigation when encountering him at a convention to the effect he looked forward to driving a spike through his heart."

For two views that suggest he is a simple victim of dmonization, pure and simple, see articles on:

Republican Dirty Tricks: "Was Spitzer Targeted?" by Paul Campos.

Prostitution is not relevant to public duties and responsibilities: "Spitzer’s Shame Is Wall Street’s Gain" by Robert Scheer.

In decidding whether Spitzer was demonized, however, at least two critical counter-issues should be considered.

1. Political hypocrisy may not be grounds for impeachment but it is certainly fair game for very strong criticism. Whatever the morality and legality of what he did, was he simply a hypocrite in the way he prosecuted others for crimes, including sex traficking that he also took part in? To get at this question we need also to ask: was the kind of sex trafficking he prosecuted different in kind from the kind he used? For commentary relevant to these questions see: "Foes of Sex Trade Are Stung by Fall of an Ally."

2. Should we consider prostitution and involvement with the prostitution industry simply another example of sex between "consenting" adults that therefore should be a purely private matter? On issues relevant to this point, see: "The Myth of the Victimless Crime" by Melissa Farley and Victor Malarek.

Daily Kos Readers and Obama's Religion Response

2008-03-03T17:07:00.004-05:00

Curious about reaction to issues raised in the last post, The Religious Smear Against Obama, we put the question out in a comment and a poll on the Daily Kos asking whether readers thought Obama's responses had been proper. (To see the last post, go to: The Religious "Smear" Against Obama)

The responses to the (very unscientific) poll were interesting. For a liberal blog it was striking that very few thought Obama should attack the integrity of the religion question itself. Moreover, in the comments of readers to the poll and the blurb with which we introduced the poll, almost everyone discussed Obama's responses only in strategic terms and almost no one discussed their propriety.

Poll:

Senator Obama's response to questions about whether he is a Muslim should be to:

Not dignify the question with an answer: 2% or 2 votes

Say only that whether one is Muslim is irrelevant to election as
President: 6% or 6 votes

Say that he is a Christian and also say that whether one is
Muslim is irrelevant to election as President: 52% or 46 votes

Only say that he is a Christian: 24% or 21 votes

Say that he is a Christian and clearly reject the idea that he is a Muslim: 13% or 12 votes

To see reader commentary and the poll itself go to: tdeluca at Daily Kos

Religious "Smear" Against Obama

2008-03-01T09:33:00.007-05:00

One of the lines of "swiftboating" attack against Senator Barack Obama has been the showing of pictures of him in traditional clothing (actually, nomdadic Somali elder costume, including turban) while visiting Kenya, being sure to include and emphasize his middle name "Hussein", and falsely claiming that he's a Muslim.What makes each of these a smear is not the literal claim or picture itself--leaders often wear traditional costume when visiting another country--but why it is used and what it is deployed to explicitly suggest about Obama in the post 9-11 world of American politics, given his background and his race.

It is noteable, however, that the response of the candidate and the campaign on religion is simply to strongly deny that Obama's a Muslim, without rejecting the premise of the question: that religious affiliation could be a disqualification for the office of the Presidency. For example, according to Naomi Klein, Obama said to one Christian News reorter: “I’m not and never have been of the Muslim faith." He hasn't even given a Seinfeldesque: "I"m not a . . . not that there's anything wrong with it."

The question of Obama's response has not been treated much in the media, but Naomi
Klein takes it up in "Obama Being Called a Muslim is Not a Smear." Although Klein uses her argument as a lens to view our entire relationhip with the Muslim world, wrongly in some places, the central point about religion and our domestic politics is well worth considering.

Is the Swiftboating of Obama Just Around the Corner?

2008-02-24T09:59:00.004-05:00

The campaign for President between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has focused on the narrative of experience versus vision, and has been echoed in the nascent campaign between John McCain and Obama. More ominous ominous political attacks, however, may be laying in the weeds. Will Obama be attacked for his lack of patriotism or worse? Will the American people allow such attacks to be successful as they were against John Kerry in 2004?

These may prove critical questions for the next election, should Obama, as now seems likely, become the Democratic nominee. What do you think? For an analysis of the future swifboating of Obama see "Obama May Face Grilling on Patriotism."

Conspiracy Theory? You Must Be An Enthusiast!

2008-02-19T10:00:00.004-05:00

In today's New York Times article, "New Trove Opened in Kennedy Killing," Leslie Eaton refers to those who question the Warren Commission "lone gunman" theory as "conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy enthusiasts." Not once in the article, about the release by the Dallas DA of items related to the assassination that have been sealed for more than forty years, is there mention of the findings of the 1970s Congressional investigation of the assassination that questioned the Warren Commission, nor other reputable inquiries and critiques.

The point here isn't to re-argue the Kennedy murder, but rather to note how easily discourse gets framed in ways prejudicial to one side in important debates. Undoubtedly, some people are enthusiasts of exciting conspiracies and others (sometimes the same people) find a conspiracy under every rock. Others like their history to be as unsettling and simple as possible--they want it not just to recede with time but to go away. Unfortunately, in life there are times when history is clear and others when it is quite murky. Conspiracies sometimes do exist, and you shouldn't have to be an enthusiast to know that.

To judge for yourself, go to New Trove Opened in Kennedy Killing.

Instead of Demonizing the Poor, End Poverty

2008-02-18T10:09:00.004-05:00

In his column in the NY Times today, "Poverty is Poison," Paul Krugman takes on a number of myths that have been used to demonize the poor and those who argue for the moral correctness and the feasibility of eliminating poverty.

Krugman shows:

1. Poverty brings with it life circustances that can affect not just the quality of education but the actual neurological capacity to learn.

He writes: "neuroscientists have found that “many children growing up in very poor families with low social status experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.” The effect is to impair language development and memory — and hence the ability to escape poverty — for the rest of the child’s life.

So now we have another, even more compelling reason to be ashamed about America’s record of failing to fight poverty."

2. The War on Poverty of the 1960s did alleviate poverty to a significant degree, contrary to often repeated myth. Poverty rates were 23% in 1963 and went down to 14% by 1969. He implies much of this was due to the War on Poverty although he is not clear on the contribution from other factors, such as economic growth, anti-discrimination policies, etc. The poverty rate has since climbed, however, after demonizing assaults on such programs, most famously Ronald Reagan's demonizing attacks on Cadillac driving "welfare queens." In 2006 it stood at 17.4%.

3. One reason for the lack of attention to poverty is the idea that America is a land of meritocracy, where all can succeed through proper discipline and effort.

Krugman writes, however:

"the fact of the matter is that Horatio Alger stories are rare, and stories of people trapped by their parents’ poverty are all too common. According to one recent estimate, American children born to parents in the bottom fourth of the income distribution have almost a 50 percent chance of staying there — and almost a two-thirds chance of remaining stuck if they’re black.
That’s not surprising. Growing up in poverty puts you at a disadvantage at every step. . .
in modern America parental status trumps ability: students who did very well on a standardized test but came from low-status families were slightly less likely to get through college than students who tested poorly but had well-off parents."

4. Targeted programs in Europe have had success in mitigating poverty. Government programs can work.

Conclusion: Rather than demonizing the poor or their advocates, it is time for the richest nation on earth to put the shame of poverty behind us. Poverty can be alleviated if not eliminated if we have the will to do so. In this presidential year, John Edwards deserves our thanks for putting this issue on the political agenda of candidates Clinton and Obama, and the rest of us.

To read his column in its entirety go to: Poverty is Poison.

WRONG! Bush Mis-states Obama's Foreign Policy

2008-02-13T11:59:00.004-05:00

George W. Bush told Fox News Sunday that Obama wants to "attack Pakistan and embrace (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad." According to Angie Drobnic Holan, writing on PolitiFact.com, Obama's real position is to "go after terrorists hiding in Pakistan if the authorities there don't, and he promised a diplomatic effort with Iran. We rated Bush's statement False."

This is taken from:
When presidents play politics
By Angie Drobnic HolanPublished on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008 at 04:56 p.m.

To see the interview with President Bush click here.

WRONG! is a new feature of the Daily Demonizer. If you have suggestions for entries, please leave a comment.

Probing the Shuster Chelsea "being pimped out" Comment

2008-02-11T20:33:00.001-05:00

It's been all over the airwaves by now. In a discussion with guests about Chelsea Clinton's role in her mother Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster commented: "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Shuster has since apologized, and been suspended.

It's worth taking a moment to not only criticize the insensitivity of the remark, but also think about the atmosphere which allows and encourages it.

The Clinton's have been fair game for some time on issues of moral propriety, and the ground for this comment was laid years ago by Clinton-haters. This is the large grain truth in the commentary by Paul Krugman in the next post, when he refers to as the "Clinton rules" by which commentators are willing to say or believe most things about the Clintons because of who they are. The Clintons may or may not be guilty of various moral improprieties--that's a separate debate--but they've never been accused of being bad parents. Yet, demonization creates the conditions in which all manner of attack becomes licensed.

But there is more. Our media is obsessed with speed, cleverness, and ratings, so the commentators who survive as talking heads speak with great deliberation at their peril. Throw into the churning mix of rapid response and blather prejudices from years of Clinton bashing and it's not surprising such personal nastiness sometimes surfaces.

The medium isn't the message, but the medium encourages the sharp, quick, cutting, denigrating comment--ask Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh--and is partly responsible for the demonization in politics we witness today.

For a link to David Shuster's comments on You Tube go to Shuster's comment. And who's that laughing in the background?

Who's Tricky Now? Krugman Says Obama Supporters Almost "Cult of Personality"

2008-02-11T15:20:00.000-05:00

In his column today in the New York Times the usually prescient economist Paul Krugman stands on the border of the “Nixonland” he so despises: “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo. . . the land of smash and grab and anything to win.”

Calling his column “Hate Springs Eternal,” he warns that the Obama campaign is on the brink of becoming a “cult of personality.” Sandwiching this broadside between attacks on Nixon, on one side, and against the Bush political machine on the other, he leaves no doubt where the hate comes from: Republicans and the Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

“I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here,” Krugman writes, “most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. . . What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” [by which]— pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.”

Krugman makes a good point. Too often in politics small flaws real or imagined are trumped up into major character defects, signs of deviance, or markers of outright evil. Sometimes this turns into outright demonization. As he claims, that was done to Al Gore and many others, including the Clintons. Is he now doing it to Obama and his supporters?

The key ingredients of unwarranted demonization are these: first, the leveling a very serious charge that someone is immoral, deviant or evil, and second, doing so without care for the consequences or providing the evidence.

"Cult of personality” is, indeed, a very serious charge. It's a claim of deviance, if not evil. Yet there's no evident consideration of the consequences for the people he is lumping together in his attack, really not just the Obama campaign, but its supporters as well. Nor is any evidence provided-- none.

Krugman seems content to use techniques that might make “Tricky Dick” Nixon smile. In saying Obama supporters are "dangerously close" to becoming a "cult of personality"--rather than saying they're already there-- Krugman can pose as issuing a warning rather than engaging in an attack--if only the misguided would come to their senses. Second, he suggests the charge must be true because others are also saying it--but he not only provides no evidence, he doesn't even tell us who said so.

Other assumptions also abound, such as Obama supporters are "happy with the Clinton rules." Or his implication that Obama supporters may not support Clinton if she's the nominee because they only care about "hero worship." Where is the evidence that has Krugman so worked up?

I would even go further to suggest that Krugman also stigmatizes Republicans as a group here, as if only Republicans are capable of demonizing Democrats through character assassination.

To read Krugman’s article in full and judge for yourself please go to: Hate Springs Eternal. To express your views to Mr. Krugman go to: E mail Paul Krugman.

Romney Demonizes Dems in Opening Bid for 2012 Nomination

2008-02-07T16:20:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney "suspended" his campaign for the nomination of his party for President on Thursday, saying, according to CNN, that continuing would "forestall the launch of a national campaign and be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win."

This exit this year should be understood for what it is, the beginning of his campaign for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, should John McCain fail to capture the White House in November.

Romney wasn't content to bow out gracefully, however, but did so in a way that demonized Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party in order to score future points with conservatives. Speaking before the Conservative Political Action Conference, he said:

"In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. This is not an easy decision. I hate to lose," the former Massachusetts governor said.
"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country."
Romney made the announcement Thursday afternoon at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
With Romney out, Sen. John McCain is locked in as the front-runner in the GOP race.

Coulter's "Apology" Demonizes Edwards

2007-03-04T07:21:00.000-05:00

Ann Coulter was criticized for her comments reported in the last post by Republican candidates for President McCain, Romney, and Giuliani. Asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, she said:

“C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Ann Coulter, At it Again

2007-03-03T15:38:00.000-05:00

March 3, 2007, 10:32 am

Fallout Over Coulter’s Anti-Gay Remark

By Adam Nagourney

There’s some big fallout from the meeting in Washington of the Conservative Political Action Conference, three days of conferencing, caucusing, presidential addressing and book-hawking. These conferences have historically been known for displaying what its own organizers would describe as over-the-top behavior, and one of the regular speakers – Ann Coulter – offered an example of it when she used an anti-gay epithet on Friday to describe John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina and Democratic presidential contender.

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards,” she said, speaking to an overflow room of activists.
That rehab remark was apparently a reference to Isaiah Washington, one of the stars on Grey’s Anatomy, a television series, who called a co-star T.R. Knight anti-gay names and went to rehabilitation over it.

Mr. Edwards’s campaign quickly responded.
“John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power,” said his campaign manager, David Bonior. “Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter’s resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion.”

Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman, said: “There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds.”

Democrats were not the only denouncing Ms. Coulter. “The comments were wildly inappropriate,” said Brian Jones, a spokesman for Senator John McCain, a Republican candidate for president who did not attend.

Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said: “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.

The question of whether the remark was offensive enough aside, the Edwards campaign saw an opportunity in the remarks of a woman who is about as popular in liberal Democratic circles as Hillary Rodham Clinton is in Republican circles (not very). Mr. Bonior sent an e-mail to supporters last night urging them to make contributions to the Edwards campaign.
“If we can raise $100,000 in “Coulter Cash” this week, we can show that bigotry will only backfire on those who use it,” Mr. Bonior wrote. “John is not the first progressive leader to face this kind of slime, but together, we can make sure he is one of the last.”

Times being what they are, Mr. Bonior let in to a little bit of excess in his plea for cash. “Coulter’s attack was no accident,” he said. “It happened on national television at one of the year’s biggest conservative conferences. Dick Cheney and most of the Republican candidates were in the audience. She was even introduced by Mitt Romney.”

Mr. Cheney was not there. Mr. Romney preceded her and mentioned that she was speaking later — he jokingly referred to her as a “moderate” — but he did not formally introduce her.
That said, attendees said that Ms. Coulter not only spoke warmly about Mr. Romney but all but endorsed him.

Postscript: Check out memeorandum.com for a roundup of blog chatter on this subject.

Rumsfeld Calls Iraq Opponents "Appeasers"

2006-08-30T09:16:00.000-05:00

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested in a speech to veterans that those who oppose the administrations policies in the Iraq war and the war on terrorism haven't learned the lesson of WWII: you cannot appease a vicious enemy.

Once again conflating the war against Al Qaeda and the war in Iraq, the Bush administration is trying to rescue its disasterous Iraq policy by smearing its opponents as weaklings in the war on terrorism. Really? Consider this, Mr. Rumsfeld. Had we not invaded Iraq, might we have used the 140,000 troops there and the billions of dollars being squandered for a more effective war on terrorism? There was no--let's repeat that--no terrorist threat directed at the U.S. coming out of Iraq before we invaded. No one wants to appease terrorists, Mr. Rumsfeld. Nor, however, will your smears scare us into appeasing you.

For the beginning of a news report on Rumsfeld's talk, see below.

Rumsfeld Says War Critics Haven't Learned Lessons of History . August 30, 2006, New York Times

By DAVID S. CLOUD

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that critics of the war in Iraq and the campaign against terror groups ''seem not to have learned history's lessons,'' and he alluded to those in the 1930's who advocated appeasing Nazi Germany.

In a speech to thousands of veterans at the American Legion's annual convention here, Mr. Rumsfeld sharpened his rebuttal of critics of the Bush administration's Iraq strategy, some of whom have called for phased withdrawal of United States forces or partitioning of the country.

Comparing terrorist groups to a ''new type of fascism,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said, ''With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?''
It was the second unusually combative speech by Mr. Rumsfeld to a veterans group in two days and appeared to be part of a concerted administration effort to address criticism of the war's conduct.

Oldest Trick in the Demonizing Book

2006-08-17T08:12:00.001-05:00

“There’s some good people in our country who believe we should cut and run. They’re not bad people when they say that, they’re decent people."-- George Bush, August 17, 2006

In saying this President George Bush tries to put a compasionate face on the kind of political mudslinging favored by his Veep Dick Cheney. But this is the oldest trick in the book. Why? You don't have to be Karl Rove to know that Bush's comment is the same as saying "Cowards are Good People Too." Huh? And, who are these cowards? Well the crowd that thinks the war in Iraq should have never become part of the war against Al Qaeda.

Taking all of this personally, Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, responded by saying, “Misstating the Democrats’ position on Iraq doesn’t change the fact that the White House’s Iraq policy has been a tragic failure.”

The Al Qaeda Candidate and Liberal CNN

2006-08-11T09:27:00.000-05:00

CNN's anchor, Chuck Roberts: ‘Might Some Argue That Lamont…Is The al Qaeda Candidate?’

In discussing the impact of the airline terror plot stopped by British authorities, CNN Headline News, anchor Chuck Roberts asked Hotline senior editor John Mercurio: “How does this factor into the Lieberman/Lamont contest? And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the al Qaeda candidate?”

Roberts here is at least guilty of letting people such as Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman set the terms of debate. This is exactly what much of the media allowed, when President Bush framed the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. This kind of rhetoric is not only malicious, it is dangerous. It makes it impossible to have serious discussion and debate about what to do about some of the most serious problems we face.

Joe and Dick: It was the Al Qaedaocrats that Beat Lieberman

2006-08-11T08:37:00.000-05:00

There he goes again. Following in the wake of Joe Lieberman's defeat in the recent Connecticut primary, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed Ned Lamont's victory would help "Al Qaeda types" in the war on terrorism.

But wait a minute. Lamont is opposed to the way we are fighting the war in Iraq, not a vigorous war against terrorists. No matter. If you oppose any--you are with us or against us-- Cheney policy, you are at best a dupe of the terrorists.

For his part Joe Lieberman agreed: leaving Iraq as people like Lamont want to do: “will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.” “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

"I am a Liberal" -- Clooney's One-Man-Stand

2006-03-14T03:56:00.000-05:00

By saying loudly and clearly what many politicians are afraid to say, George Clooney has struck a blow against demonization in politics.

In the 1960s major politicians would proudly proclaim themselves to be liberals. Since at least the 1980s "liberalism" has become a dirty word, thanks in part to the efforts of President Ronald Reagan who accused Jimmy Carter of being a "liberal." Before becoming president, Carter had never been regarded as anything other than a moderate-to slightly conservative Democrat. Even as president, Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party for the 1980 Democratic nomination.

So charged has the "liberal" label become and so on the defensive have liberals and their policies become, anyone not considered conservative enough has become became fair game for this charge. This pejorative use of what used to be a respectable political label continues to this day.

Clooney deserves praise for standing up for what he believes and for standing up for those less brave or well positioned to stand up for themselves.

A note of caution: as liberals try to redress the balance, they should be careful. Strong tough disagreement is one thing. Seeing conservatives--or those merely not liberal enough--as the root of all evil is quite another. As liberals stand up for themselves in the fight against demonization, they need to avoid the temptation of self-righteousness that will only deepen the polarization that already exists.

Does Clooney give in to this temptation? He's on the edge. All things considered, however, Clooney has said something that needs to be said. And he's right on target in deconstructing why many Democrats in Congress went along with the Iraq war, and using this as a prime example of the harm demonization can do to democratic politics. We congratulate him.

Published on Monday, March 13, 2006 by the Huffington Post
I Am a Liberal. There, I Said It!
by George Clooney

I am a liberal. And I make no apologies for it. Hell, I'm proud of it.

Too many people run away from the label. They whisper it like you'd whisper "I'm a Nazi." Like it's a dirty word. But turn away from saying "I'm a liberal" and it's like you're turning away from saying that blacks should be allowed to sit in the front of the bus, that women should be able to vote and get paid the same as a man, that McCarthy was wrong, that Vietnam was a mistake. And that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is an incredibly polarized time (wonder how that happened?). But I find that, more and more, people are trying to find things we can agree on. And, for me, one of the things we absolutely need to agree on is the idea that we're all allowed to question authority. We have to agree that it's not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable and to speak out. That's one of the things that drew me to making a film about Murrow. When you hear Murrow say, "We mustn't confuse dissent with disloyalty" and "We can't defend freedom at home by deserting it at home," it's like he's commenting on today's headlines.

The fear of being criticized can be paralyzing. Just look at the way so many Democrats caved in the run up to the war. In 2003, a lot of us were saying, where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit. Which is why it drives me crazy to hear all these Democrats saying, "We were misled." It makes me want to shout, "[Expletive deleted] you, you weren't misled. You were afraid of being called unpatriotic."
Bottom line: it's not merely our right to question our government, it's our duty. Whatever the consequences. We can't demand freedom of speech then turn around and say, "but please don't say bad things about us." You gotta be a grown-up and take your hits.

I am a liberal. Fire away.

© 2006 The Huffington Post

Ted Koppel Catches Bush Using a Three Letter Word

2006-02-24T13:53:00.000-05:00

The three letter word "O-I-L" has been missing from virtually all discussions of the war in Iraq. Yet would the war have happened anywhere outside of the oil-rich Middle East?

Does demonizing those who mention the three letter word help or hurt us as a nation trying to figure out what next to do?

Below Ted Koppel takes President Bush to task for demonizing as dishonest those who mention OIL. Then he gives the President a much needed history lesson about U.S. foreign policy and oil since the end of WWII.

Anti-Demonizer of the Month

*Thank you Ted Koppel!*

**You get the Anti-Demonizer of the Month Award for February 2006**

-----------------
New York Times
February 24, 2006

Will Fight for Oil

By TED KOPPEL

The American people ... know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people.
— President Bush, Jan. 10 Washington

Let us, as lawyers say, stipulate that the Bush administration was genuinely concerned that weapons of mass destruction, which they firmly believed to be in Saddam Hussein's arsenal, might be shared with the same Qaeda leadership that planned the horrific events of 9/11. That would have been a reasonable motive for invading Iraq; but surely now, three years later, when the existence of those weapons is no longer an issue, it would be insufficient reason for the United States to remain there.

Let us further acknowledge that continuing to put American lives at risk in Iraq purely for the protection of Israel would arouse, in some quarters, anti-Semitic murmurs, if not growls.
But the Bush administration's touchiness about charges that we acted — and are still acting — in Iraq "because of oil"? Now that's curious. Keeping oil flowing out of the Persian Gulf and through the Strait of Hormuz has been bedrock American foreign policy for more than a half-century.
Fifty-three years ago, British and American intelligence officers conspired to help bring about the overthrow of Iran's prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh's shortcomings, in the eyes of Whitehall and the State Department, were an unseemly affinity for the Tudeh Party (the Iranian Communists) and his plans to nationalize the Iranian oil industry. The prospect of the British oil industry being forced to give way to Soviet influence over the Iranian oil spigot called for drastic action. Following a military coup, Mossadegh was arrested, imprisoned for three years and then held under house arrest until his death in 1967. Power was then effectively concentrated in the hands of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

The shah's unswerving commitment to the free flow and marketing of Iranian oil would, by the end of the 1960's, become a central pillar of the so-called Nixon Doctrine, in which American allies were tapped to be regional surrogates to maintain peace and security. The sales of sophisticated American weapons to Iran served the twin purposes of sopping up billions of what came to be known as "petro-dollars," while equipping (in particular) the shah's air force.
That reliance on Iran to maintain stability in the Persian Gulf enjoyed bipartisan support. On New Year's Eve in 1977, President Jimmy Carter, visiting the shah in Tehran, toasted his great leadership, which he said had made Iran "an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas in the world." By January 1980, after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had driven the shah from the Peacock Throne, President Carter made absolutely clear in his final State of the Union address that one aspect of our foreign policy remained unchanged:
"An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

The Reagan administration announced its intention to continue defending the free flow of Middle East oil, by whatever means necessary. In March 1981, Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger clearly signaled that the United States was seeking a new base of operations in the Persian Gulf:
"We need some facilities and additional men and materiel there or nearby, to act as a deterrent to any Soviet hopes of seizing the oil fields or interdicting the line."

Subsequently, the United States began establishing military bases in Saudi Arabia and, to much criticism, selling Awacs aircraft to the Saudi government. In 1990, when Saddam Hussein appeared likely to follow his invasion of Kuwait by crossing into Saudi Arabia, the defense secretary at the time, Dick Cheney, laid out Washington's concerns:

"We're there because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein, with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on — indeed on the world economy."

What Mr. Cheney said was correct then and remains correct now. The world's oil producers pump approximately 80 million barrels a day. The world's oil consumers, joined today by an increasingly oil-hungry India and China, purchase 80 million barrels a day. Were production from the Persian Gulf to be disrupted because of civil war in Iraq, the freezing of Iranian sales or political instability in Saudi Arabia, the global supply would be diminished. The impact on the American economy and, indeed, on the world economy would be as devastating today as in 1990.

If those considerations did not enter into the Bush administration's calculations when the president ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it would have been the first time in more than 50 years that the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil was not a central element of American foreign policy.

That is not to say that the United States invaded Iraq to take over its oil supply. But the construction of American military bases inside Iraq, bases that can be maintained long after the bulk of our military forces are ultimately withdrawn, will serve to replace the bases that the United States has lost in Saudi Arabia. There may be other national security reasons that the United States cannot now precipitously withdraw its forces from Iraq, including the danger that the country would become a regional terrorist base; but none is greater than forestalling the ensuing power vacuum and regional instability, and the impact this would have on oil production.

H. L. Mencken is said to have noted that "when someone says it's not about the money — it's about the money." Arguing in support of his fellow Arkansan during Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, former Senator Dale Bumpers offered a variation on that theme: "When someone says it's not about the sex — it's about the sex."

Perhaps the day will come when the United States is no longer addicted to imported oil; but that day is still many years off. For now, the reason for America's rapt attention to the security of the Persian Gulf is what it has always been. It's about the oil.
Ted Koppel, who retired as anchor and managing editor of the ABC program "Nightline" in November, is a contributing columnist for The Times and managing editor of the Discovery Channel.

Michael Moore Accuses Cheney of Boozing

2006-02-19T16:47:00.000-05:00

But the Articles He Cites Don't Support the Charge.

******************************
A Quail's Tale By Michael Moore?
******************************
Cheney takes no questions, gets ovation from hand-picked, hometown audience after drinking beer, shooting friend in face.

*****************************************************
On his website Michael Moore leaves the impression that Dick Cheney was drinking it up before accidentally shooting his friend on a recent hunting trip. The stories linked to the Moore headlines don't corroborate Moore's sensationalism. In any case, is Moore's real beef with Cheney the Veep's personal character, or his political agenda?
*****************************************************
He Shoulda Had a V8 or two; Cheney admits to boozing prior to shooting friend in the face Scott McClellan Refuses to Deny Dick Cheney's Boozing Sheriff's Deputies Failed to Administer Alcohol Test Alcohol Was the First Thing On Whittington's Mind Finger on the Trigger of America

O'Reilly's New Year's Resolution: Everyone Should Stop the Smearing--Except Him

2006-01-01T13:17:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure Bill O'Reilly's New Year's Resolution constitutes demonization exactly. Still, it shows the kind of sanctimonious mindset that succumbs to demonizing temptations: an inability to see that you do exactly the thing you most hate in those you disagree with.

First, some selections from his resolutions, and then a little commentary.

Bill's New Year's Resolution:

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight. I'll be taking a few days off to celebrate Christmas. So this evening's "Talking Points Memo" will be "The Factor's" resolutions for the New Year. . . .

We resolve to hold prominent people accountable when they smear others. That simply has to stop. But karma is kicking in. For example, left wing zealot George Clooney ran around smearing me to try to bring attention to his movies this season. It didn't work. Fewer than four million Americans went to see his first film. And the second one is shaping up to be a big box office bomb. Now Clooney's a talented guy. He's making a huge mistake using smear tactics.

And speaking of disasters, our competitor at MSNBC is a notorious smear merchant. So far this month, December, "The Factor's" third rerun at 4:00 in the morning has beaten the MSNBC's original 8:00 program more than 50 percent of the time. Unbelievable.

"Talking Points" resolves to keep the pressure on the Bush administration to secure the borders because we believe this is a life/death situation.

We resolve to continue watching the ACLU, the nation's most dangerous organization.

Finally, we resolve in our 10th year to continue bringing you an honest broadcast that is not afraid of anyone.

Commentary:

Bill--look at your own show and at Fox News--and then consider this as your New Year's Resolution: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

And Bill: since you resolve that your show will continue fearlessly not to be "afraid of anyone" why don't you be not afraid of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crowd for a change, on some issue other than politically safe immigration bashing, and give the liberal-left powerhouse that is in charge of no branch of government or business a Christmas break?

For all of O'Reilly's resolutions click here.

Rush: Dems Against Anything Good for America

2005-12-07T19:38:00.000-05:00

Rush Limbaugh claims:

". . . I think the Democrats are telling us exactly who they are.

They are anti-war. They are anti-military, anti-victory, and anything good that happens in this country, folks, is not going to help them the way they've positioned themselves. I mean, how would you...? Who is the brain that put this party in this position? If you were in politics, how would you like this position? The only way that you benefit is if the country is in misery. The only way you benefit is if we lose in Iraq, we lose everywhere we go, we have soup lines, constant national disasters, natural disasters, everything going to hell in a hand basket. That's what it takes for you to win. Who is the wizard that constructed this party in this way? They're all doing it together because that's how they view the future. They look at things and see doom and gloom. In fact, liberalism is a doom and gloom PsyOps operation. The media is their propaganda arm. Their whole outlook is doom and gloom.

They have a PsyOps operation they've been running on this country for 50 years. Psychological operations to convince everybody that there's nothing ahead but doom and gloom, utter misery and despair, and they've got their propaganda arm, the mainstream press, to plant the stories every day. But it has resulted not in what they figured. Their triumphant return to power. In fact, they are now marginalizing themselves with people actually questioning their patriotism, not just their judgment. Questioning their sanity, questioning their real intentions."

What about the Republicans?: "They still remain their optimistic and cheerful selves."

For the text of his full remarks see: "What Will the Left Be Left With in '06?"

Coulter Calls Dems "Gutless Cowards"

2005-11-30T19:29:00.000-05:00

In an article entitled: "New Idea for the Abortion Party: Aid the Enemy," Ann Coulter wrote:

"The Democrats are giving aid and comfort to the enemy for no purpose other than giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is no plausible explanation for the Democrats' behavior other than that they long to see U.S. troops shot, humiliated, and driven from the field of battle. They fill the airwaves with treason, but when called to vote on withdrawing troops, disavow their own public statements. These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors."

To read the full article, published November 23, click here.

Murtha the "Coward'?

2005-11-22T18:05:00.000-05:00

The uproar arose Friday as the House debated a resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal of forces from Iraq.In scheduling the vote, Republicans were trying to embarrass Democratic critics of the war, forcing them to dissociate themselves from a call earlier in the week for a slower but still definite withdrawal. That call came from Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam combat veteran who spent 37 years in the Marines and is one of the most respected military authorities in the House.In attacking the Democrats' position, Ms. Schmidt, the newest member of Congress, said she had received a call from a Marine colonel, who "asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do.

The House exploded in catcalls and jeers among outraged Democrats. When debate resumed, Ms. Schmidt retracted her comments and said, "I did not intend to suggest they applied to any member," especially Mr. Murtha. Ms. Schmidt could not be reached for comment on Saturday, with voice mailboxes full at all three of her offices.

From "'Mean Jean' Goes to Washington, and Invites a Firestorm" By JASON DePARLE, New York Times. Published: November 20, 2005 - For the full NY Times article, click here.