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
Monday, March 03, 2008
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Religious "Smear" Against Obama
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.
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.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Is the Swiftboating of Obama Just Around the Corner?
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."
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."
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Conspiracy Theory? You Must Be An Enthusiast!
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.
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.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Instead of Demonizing the Poor, End Poverty
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
WRONG! Bush Mis-states Obama's Foreign Policy
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.
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.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Probing the Shuster Chelsea "being pimped out" Comment
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?
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"
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.
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.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Romney Demonizes Dems in Opening Bid for 2012 Nomination
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.
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.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Coulter's "Apology" Demonizes Edwards
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.”
“C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Ann Coulter, At it Again
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Rumsfeld Calls Iraq Opponents "Appeasers"
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
