Ok, this one is getting a bit stale, but I have to post it. I wrote this a week ago and never posted it. Here it is warts and all.
Andrew Sullivan goes off the rails.
Note: I try to refrain from meta-blogging as it is usually because the blogger is trying to ride the coatails of the original writer. I certainly am not. I don't have an audience at all. I've not told a single soul of this blog and not sure I intend to. (This is more of a diary of sorts.) What follows is my mental splinter picking. It's bothering me and I have to pick at it to ease the pain.
I've been reading his blog for about 2 years now. It's been an eye opener for me as he was always difficult to pin down. He's gay and conservative (usually) and Catholic. He has interesting and well thought out opinions about things (even when they're wrong). In the past I've disagreed with him but understood his viewpoint. Since his return from the hammock I'm starting to think he's becoming unglued. I'm not kidding. He's careening around the bend into Moore territory and for the life of me I can't figure it out. I know he's has a major problem with the religious right wing of the party ("theocrats" he calls them) and I understand his frustration. That frustration is fermenting into bile. One of his letter writers chided him earlier for his double standard. He complained that the GOP was going to let Santorum speak. Boo Hiss! He's an anti-gay Theocrat! Then they announced they would let the moderates dominate the convention. Boo Hiss! Why are they hiding the Theocrats!? You can't win. The latest example was more of the same. He said the convention was a mishmash of reasons Bush was great and then he says all the harped on was Bush as a war president. Which is it?
Some examples:
It also matters that Bush does seem to have faith in what he is doing. The problem is that he seems to have too much faith at times, and not enough skepticism. You need skepticism in war to second-guess your intelligence sources, to doubt the efficacy of a war with too few troops, or an occupation easily derailed by insurgent forces you greatly under-estimated and failed to foresee.
This is one of his constant carps. He doesn't admit his failures enough. I can't imagine that he should. The left is been looking for something, ANYTHING to throw at him. He is wise not to give them fodder especially in an election year. It would be daft to get on the stump and itemize his failures, setbacks and miscalculations. Just because he doesn't speak of them doesn't mean he doesn't recognize they exist. I can tell you that I don't air my dirty laundry all the time but damn if it ain't there and I sure know about it. His main and continual gripe is that the convention is pure politics. OF COURSE IT IS! That is precisely the point. It's a week-long sales pitch, an infomercial. The days of conventions being lively events where debates occur and the delegate is decided at the convention are over. Modern politics simply doesn't allow for such a convention. Were either party to attempt this the results would be disastrous.
More:
MOCKING THE MILITARY: Hey, if it helps beat John Kerry, who cares? These Purple Heart bandages are plain sickening. The mindset that enables them is depraved. Both sides have their extremists. And it's good that the GOP hierarchy has disowned these gimmicks. But it also tells you something about what motivates some of the Republican base.
I think they're rather funny. They are not intented to denigrate ALL Purple Heart winners, just Kerry. Kerry's own campaign admitted that he injured himself (and barely at that) for his first commenadation. He's been bragging and bragging about his medals. If he didn't earn them he deserves scorn to be heaped upon him. When the Republicans run on their platform of "Family Values" they have oppo research into their personal lives to find any instances of indiscretion.
Next Andrew lauds a letter writer that says
"The President's supporters are so twisted with hatred of their opponents that they cannot even acknowledge the simple fact that John Kerry put himself in harm's way, fought with courage, bled for his country....That anyone would begrudge Kerry taking the three Purple Hearts and the right to go back home that came with them is truly depraved."
Admittedly this was before Cheney publicly praised his service at the convention but Bush has repeatedly lauded his service in the media. Must have missed that too. Depraved? Absurd. I am not and never was in the military but to take three Purple Hearts for paper-cut grade wounds in order to flee back to safety is the height of cowardice. Any military man I've spoken to recoils in horror at the thought of being rotated out of their unit when they are in harm's way. No man of any character would dream of such a thing. Compounding the vileness is Kerry coming home to slander those he left behind. Ask McCain. He'll tell you that they used Kerry's speeches while he was being tortured. This while he was still a reserve officer. In my estimation, that's treason and he should have been tried for it.
I truly thnk Andrew is so enraged by the GOP's feeble attempts to pass the FMA he has been blinded. Nothing they do now can redeem themselves in his eyes.
Sullivan adds:
My feelings entirely. I notice, however, that now that the smears have taken their toll, the talking point from the GOP is that the real issue is Kerry's 1971 testimony. That indeed is a completely legitimate issue.
One which we'll see shortly.
But if these vets had just started with that, would they have gained traction? No - they had to challenge Kerry's medals in order to get the media attention that would allow them to refight the Vietnam war.
REPUBLICANS are refighting the Vietnam war!? This is what I'm talking about. He has truly lost it. Democrats have been forcing Iraq into their Vietnam prism since before the war started. They do the same with the "anti-war" protests.
What galls me is how people like the elder Bush and Dole and Gillespie and Novak and others now refuse to back up specifics impugning Kerry's medals but ask open-ended questions like: "Could they all be liars?" Or: "There are inconsistencies," - without having the balls to say what they are (because the most reliable records refute Kerry's critics on all but one trivial count).
Cite me one instance of anyone associate with the campaign questioning Kerry's medals or his service. All of this is from 527's and external sources.
This is a classic smear tactic. But it's no use complaining, and Kerry was wrong to hope the media would ignore the smears. What worries me is what happens if Bush wins the election and a huge swathe of blue America concludes it was because of this swift boat business. The rancor that we have seen already could metastasize into something even more bitter and divisive. I cannot see how that benefits anyone in the long run.
Blame McCain and Feingold. This is the beast they have wrought. As noted elsewhere (Vodkapundit?) there is far less centralized control over the campaign now because of the 527's.
Next up, he takes on the God of the Left; Diversity
DIVERSITY: Another theme was the alleged ideological diversity of the GOP. See - we allow our dissidents prime speaking spots, they argue. But the test of diversity is whether those speakers can actually dissent from party nostrums, and speak their own minds.
So it's assumed that unless Rudy gets up there and chants "GAY MARRIAGE NOW" or "ABORTION ON DEMAND" he's not speaking his mind. Absurd. This is not the time nor place to debate the issues. He's arguing about the fragmented message and is now encouraging, no demanding fragmenting. Which is it? Does he not realize the point here is not to have a debate but to sell a product? TO WIN THE FRIGGIN ELECTION? How naive and cynical. Where was the debate and diversity of thought at the Democrat convention? Absent and wisely so. They were much much shorter on substance and filled with platitudes. Moving on....
But McCain, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger all avoided any mention of domestic disagreements and merely vouched for Bush's character and qualifications to be a war-leader.
THAT'S THE FRIGGIN POINT OF THE CONVENTION. The war is THE KEY ISSUE for the Right and for many undecideds. It is the single most important issue we're facing today and the Democrats glossed over the issue at their convention. They talked about a "Kinder, gentler" war on terror. That is a recipe for disaster. It's suicidal and literally scares me.
The platform is the most hardline religious right document ever put together by the GOP. In that way, the dutiful appearance by one dissident after another, all of whom merely express confidence in the blessed leader, comes off as actually quite creepy.
Why is it creepy? I don't agree with half of what Bush is doing but he's damn sure going to keep us on the offensive and do more to prevent terror at home. That is the ONLY issue I'm basing my vote on. EVERYTHING else come second.
Yes, they are welcome as Republicans. But only if they toe the line in public and help re-elect the ticket. Will their views be accommodated after the election? Are you kidding? And the real leaders of the party, and its intellectual inspirations, are kept off-stage. Yes: politics as usual and no big deal. But please spare me the diversity crap. In that respect, so far, this convention has had as much variation as Bob Dole's hair color.
I have news for you Andrew, after the election, they're going to have to answer those questions. The average GOP voter is moving to the center, not rightward. Southpark Republicans are ascendant. Santorum wing of the party is waning. While the Roe Effect cannot be discounted, the war for gay rights will be won within ten years. People are becoming far more tolerant of gay marriage and the half-hearted attempts to pass the FMA were simply to appease the religious right so they’ll show up in November.
Next Zell Miller’s speech:
THE MILLER MOMENT: Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party.
He gets this exactly right. But then he loses the script.
I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift.
What exactly makes him "post-racial"? Is Zell pre-racial (whatever that means)?
Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes.
Ok, that was, oh, I don’t know, 40 years ago? 45? Can a man not change his thinking on such matters over time? What exactly did he say that had ANY racial overtone whatsoever? This is sheer lunacy. The anger he shows is perfectly understandable. Democrats have been and continue to play politics with national security. Remember the union problem with DHS? I do. I’m sure I’m not alone.
His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.
What the hell is he talking about? Miller went over Kerry’s record of voting against weapons and funding for the troops and on an on. He personally believes Kerry is not fit to serve because he has a track record of failure regarding security. There was not one lie nor strawman or hateful rhetoric.
More:
He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats.
With good reason! Moore has been feted and given a position of prominence at the Democrat convention. He was seated next to AN EX-PRESIDENT. If that isn’t an endorsement of his message, I don’t know what is. The only way they could have more explicitly endorsed him would to have been to give him time to speak from the podium.
Onward:
That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? He refers to himself as a Marine and he’s lambasted for it when John Kerry’s ENTIRE CAMPAIGN rests on 4.5 months in combat. This isn’t "Reporting for duty" or anything even remotely like it. GIVE ME A BREAK ANDREW!
By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.
He never said they were enemies he said they were playing politics and were short sighted about it. This is a far far cry from calling them enemies.
Yes, that describes some on the left, but it is a calumny against Democrats who voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and whose sincerity, as John McCain urged, should not be in question. I have never heard Kerry say that 9/11 was America's fault; if I had, it would be inconceivable to consider supporting him. And so this was, in truth, another lie, another cheap, faux-patriotic smear.
Read Andrew, read. He said the party, not the man. You yourself has said over and over that the Democrats in the grips of the most rabid leftists. The Deaniacs are just those people and THAT is who Zell is speaking about.
THE FOREIGN AGENT: Another lie: "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide." Miller might have found some shred of ancient rhetoric that will give him cover on this, but in Kerry's very acceptance speech, he declared the opposite conviction - that he would never seek permission to defend this country.
Sure he’s said that now but he’s reversed himself so many times who can keep up. He’s said over and over we "rushed" to war and we did so "unilaterally" meaning, he would not go unless the UN, France and Germany were on board. THAT IS THE PROOF. That he reversed himself several times on this issue would make Kerry bulletproof under Sullivan’s logic.
Another lie: "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war." Kerry didn't want to do that. Yes, he used his military service in the campaign - but it was his opponents who decided to dredge up the divisions of the Vietnam war in order to describe Kerry as a Commie-loving traitor who faked his own medals.
Pure bullshit. The Swifties made an issue of the medals. They are INDEPENDENT OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. They never said he was Commie loving, that’s a lie. They said his speeches aided the enemy and they had to hear them while being tortured. Both of those statements are undeniably true.
Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.
So now you admit Michael Moore is part of the Democrat machine? That’s interesting. EVERYTHING Moore has said is far more disingenuous and hateful than anything Miller said. Goodbye Andrew and good riddance. You gave up on the GOP as soon as they refused to not just tolerate but endorse your lifestyle. I expect you to reject your faith as well. That group is NEVER EVER going to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. It is one thing to refuse to support the party's candidate if you don't believe in the party but Andrew is coming so close to supporting Kerry without actually supporting him it's galling. GET OFF THE FENCE. This election matters like none other our lifetime. We are at war and if you're willing to sit this one out and not cast your lot with one side or the other, you're naive, shortsighted and stupid. Kerry has publicly declared he will bring the US troops home before the end of his first term. That is putting an end date on success in Iraq. The message to the terrorists/insurgents is; make it to that date and you win. You don't have to win any other way. Just make it to the date. Sheer lunacy. We didn't go to WWII with an "exit strategy" and we didn't slough off the rebuilding and leave it to the UN or anyone else. If we had, the USSR would have likely had ALL of Germany in it grip and who knows how much worse off Europe would have been today without Germany's economic might to propel them this far.
On Cheney:
There are no problems in Iraq. Everything is peachy. Democracy is breaking out everywhere; no mistakes have been made; no rethinking is necessary after the travails of the occupation (sorry, Zell). I understand the political need to put a gloss on things. But the surrealism of the rhetoric is, in some respects, an insult to the American people, who deserve a real accounting of where we are.
That’s precisely NOT the point of the convention. Again, you’re selling a candidate and if you start listing your mistakes, you opponent is going to eat you alive. Since Kerry is the ABB candidate you can’t give him fuel. If he has to be for something he will lose. The minute you give him something to crow about, like failures and missteps you re-energize his campaign.
Of all the difficult choices we have to make - in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia - nothing is spoken. There is not even a nod to reality. Just an assertion that only the Republicans have the balls to fight this war. It may well work in the election. But it speaks to the character of our leaders that they prefer bromides and denial to a real accounting and real leadership.
Wrong wrong wrong. They absolutely did talk about the hard choices and burdens endured by our troops and their families. The hard choices about going to war and risking the lives of those same people. Every day for the last four years he's had his ass on the line. Much of this is unsaid because it doesn't have to be said. There are tens of thousands of men and women shouldering that burden in Iraq so we don't have to here at home.
Andrew Sullivan goes off the rails.
Note: I try to refrain from meta-blogging as it is usually because the blogger is trying to ride the coatails of the original writer. I certainly am not. I don't have an audience at all. I've not told a single soul of this blog and not sure I intend to. (This is more of a diary of sorts.) What follows is my mental splinter picking. It's bothering me and I have to pick at it to ease the pain.
I've been reading his blog for about 2 years now. It's been an eye opener for me as he was always difficult to pin down. He's gay and conservative (usually) and Catholic. He has interesting and well thought out opinions about things (even when they're wrong). In the past I've disagreed with him but understood his viewpoint. Since his return from the hammock I'm starting to think he's becoming unglued. I'm not kidding. He's careening around the bend into Moore territory and for the life of me I can't figure it out. I know he's has a major problem with the religious right wing of the party ("theocrats" he calls them) and I understand his frustration. That frustration is fermenting into bile. One of his letter writers chided him earlier for his double standard. He complained that the GOP was going to let Santorum speak. Boo Hiss! He's an anti-gay Theocrat! Then they announced they would let the moderates dominate the convention. Boo Hiss! Why are they hiding the Theocrats!? You can't win. The latest example was more of the same. He said the convention was a mishmash of reasons Bush was great and then he says all the harped on was Bush as a war president. Which is it?
Some examples:
It also matters that Bush does seem to have faith in what he is doing. The problem is that he seems to have too much faith at times, and not enough skepticism. You need skepticism in war to second-guess your intelligence sources, to doubt the efficacy of a war with too few troops, or an occupation easily derailed by insurgent forces you greatly under-estimated and failed to foresee.
This is one of his constant carps. He doesn't admit his failures enough. I can't imagine that he should. The left is been looking for something, ANYTHING to throw at him. He is wise not to give them fodder especially in an election year. It would be daft to get on the stump and itemize his failures, setbacks and miscalculations. Just because he doesn't speak of them doesn't mean he doesn't recognize they exist. I can tell you that I don't air my dirty laundry all the time but damn if it ain't there and I sure know about it. His main and continual gripe is that the convention is pure politics. OF COURSE IT IS! That is precisely the point. It's a week-long sales pitch, an infomercial. The days of conventions being lively events where debates occur and the delegate is decided at the convention are over. Modern politics simply doesn't allow for such a convention. Were either party to attempt this the results would be disastrous.
More:
MOCKING THE MILITARY: Hey, if it helps beat John Kerry, who cares? These Purple Heart bandages are plain sickening. The mindset that enables them is depraved. Both sides have their extremists. And it's good that the GOP hierarchy has disowned these gimmicks. But it also tells you something about what motivates some of the Republican base.
I think they're rather funny. They are not intented to denigrate ALL Purple Heart winners, just Kerry. Kerry's own campaign admitted that he injured himself (and barely at that) for his first commenadation. He's been bragging and bragging about his medals. If he didn't earn them he deserves scorn to be heaped upon him. When the Republicans run on their platform of "Family Values" they have oppo research into their personal lives to find any instances of indiscretion.
Next Andrew lauds a letter writer that says
"The President's supporters are so twisted with hatred of their opponents that they cannot even acknowledge the simple fact that John Kerry put himself in harm's way, fought with courage, bled for his country....That anyone would begrudge Kerry taking the three Purple Hearts and the right to go back home that came with them is truly depraved."
Admittedly this was before Cheney publicly praised his service at the convention but Bush has repeatedly lauded his service in the media. Must have missed that too. Depraved? Absurd. I am not and never was in the military but to take three Purple Hearts for paper-cut grade wounds in order to flee back to safety is the height of cowardice. Any military man I've spoken to recoils in horror at the thought of being rotated out of their unit when they are in harm's way. No man of any character would dream of such a thing. Compounding the vileness is Kerry coming home to slander those he left behind. Ask McCain. He'll tell you that they used Kerry's speeches while he was being tortured. This while he was still a reserve officer. In my estimation, that's treason and he should have been tried for it.
I truly thnk Andrew is so enraged by the GOP's feeble attempts to pass the FMA he has been blinded. Nothing they do now can redeem themselves in his eyes.
Sullivan adds:
My feelings entirely. I notice, however, that now that the smears have taken their toll, the talking point from the GOP is that the real issue is Kerry's 1971 testimony. That indeed is a completely legitimate issue.
One which we'll see shortly.
But if these vets had just started with that, would they have gained traction? No - they had to challenge Kerry's medals in order to get the media attention that would allow them to refight the Vietnam war.
REPUBLICANS are refighting the Vietnam war!? This is what I'm talking about. He has truly lost it. Democrats have been forcing Iraq into their Vietnam prism since before the war started. They do the same with the "anti-war" protests.
What galls me is how people like the elder Bush and Dole and Gillespie and Novak and others now refuse to back up specifics impugning Kerry's medals but ask open-ended questions like: "Could they all be liars?" Or: "There are inconsistencies," - without having the balls to say what they are (because the most reliable records refute Kerry's critics on all but one trivial count).
Cite me one instance of anyone associate with the campaign questioning Kerry's medals or his service. All of this is from 527's and external sources.
This is a classic smear tactic. But it's no use complaining, and Kerry was wrong to hope the media would ignore the smears. What worries me is what happens if Bush wins the election and a huge swathe of blue America concludes it was because of this swift boat business. The rancor that we have seen already could metastasize into something even more bitter and divisive. I cannot see how that benefits anyone in the long run.
Blame McCain and Feingold. This is the beast they have wrought. As noted elsewhere (Vodkapundit?) there is far less centralized control over the campaign now because of the 527's.
Next up, he takes on the God of the Left; Diversity
DIVERSITY: Another theme was the alleged ideological diversity of the GOP. See - we allow our dissidents prime speaking spots, they argue. But the test of diversity is whether those speakers can actually dissent from party nostrums, and speak their own minds.
So it's assumed that unless Rudy gets up there and chants "GAY MARRIAGE NOW" or "ABORTION ON DEMAND" he's not speaking his mind. Absurd. This is not the time nor place to debate the issues. He's arguing about the fragmented message and is now encouraging, no demanding fragmenting. Which is it? Does he not realize the point here is not to have a debate but to sell a product? TO WIN THE FRIGGIN ELECTION? How naive and cynical. Where was the debate and diversity of thought at the Democrat convention? Absent and wisely so. They were much much shorter on substance and filled with platitudes. Moving on....
But McCain, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger all avoided any mention of domestic disagreements and merely vouched for Bush's character and qualifications to be a war-leader.
THAT'S THE FRIGGIN POINT OF THE CONVENTION. The war is THE KEY ISSUE for the Right and for many undecideds. It is the single most important issue we're facing today and the Democrats glossed over the issue at their convention. They talked about a "Kinder, gentler" war on terror. That is a recipe for disaster. It's suicidal and literally scares me.
The platform is the most hardline religious right document ever put together by the GOP. In that way, the dutiful appearance by one dissident after another, all of whom merely express confidence in the blessed leader, comes off as actually quite creepy.
Why is it creepy? I don't agree with half of what Bush is doing but he's damn sure going to keep us on the offensive and do more to prevent terror at home. That is the ONLY issue I'm basing my vote on. EVERYTHING else come second.
Yes, they are welcome as Republicans. But only if they toe the line in public and help re-elect the ticket. Will their views be accommodated after the election? Are you kidding? And the real leaders of the party, and its intellectual inspirations, are kept off-stage. Yes: politics as usual and no big deal. But please spare me the diversity crap. In that respect, so far, this convention has had as much variation as Bob Dole's hair color.
I have news for you Andrew, after the election, they're going to have to answer those questions. The average GOP voter is moving to the center, not rightward. Southpark Republicans are ascendant. Santorum wing of the party is waning. While the Roe Effect cannot be discounted, the war for gay rights will be won within ten years. People are becoming far more tolerant of gay marriage and the half-hearted attempts to pass the FMA were simply to appease the religious right so they’ll show up in November.
Next Zell Miller’s speech:
THE MILLER MOMENT: Zell Miller's address will, I think, go down as a critical moment in this campaign, and maybe in the history of the Republican party.
He gets this exactly right. But then he loses the script.
I kept thinking of the contrast with the Democrats' keynote speaker, Barack Obama, a post-racial, smiling, expansive young American, speaking about national unity and uplift.
What exactly makes him "post-racial"? Is Zell pre-racial (whatever that means)?
Then you see Zell Miller, his face rigid with anger, his eyes blazing with years of frustration as his Dixiecrat vision became slowly eclipsed among the Democrats. Remember who this man is: once a proud supporter of racial segregation, a man who lambasted LBJ for selling his soul to the negroes.
Ok, that was, oh, I don’t know, 40 years ago? 45? Can a man not change his thinking on such matters over time? What exactly did he say that had ANY racial overtone whatsoever? This is sheer lunacy. The anger he shows is perfectly understandable. Democrats have been and continue to play politics with national security. Remember the union problem with DHS? I do. I’m sure I’m not alone.
His speech tonight was in this vein, a classic Dixiecrat speech, jammed with bald lies, straw men, and hateful rhetoric. As an immigrant to this country and as someone who has been to many Southern states and enjoyed astonishing hospitality and warmth and sophistication, I long dismissed some of the Northern stereotypes about the South. But Miller did his best to revive them. The man's speech was not merely crude; it added whole universes to the word crude.
What the hell is he talking about? Miller went over Kerry’s record of voting against weapons and funding for the troops and on an on. He personally believes Kerry is not fit to serve because he has a track record of failure regarding security. There was not one lie nor strawman or hateful rhetoric.
More:
He accused all war critics of essentially attacking the very troops of the United States. He conflated the ranting of Michael Moore with the leaders of the Democrats.
With good reason! Moore has been feted and given a position of prominence at the Democrat convention. He was seated next to AN EX-PRESIDENT. If that isn’t an endorsement of his message, I don’t know what is. The only way they could have more explicitly endorsed him would to have been to give him time to speak from the podium.
Onward:
That macho invocation of the Marines was a classic: the kind of militarist swagger that this convention endorses and uses as a bludgeon against its opponents.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? He refers to himself as a Marine and he’s lambasted for it when John Kerry’s ENTIRE CAMPAIGN rests on 4.5 months in combat. This isn’t "Reporting for duty" or anything even remotely like it. GIVE ME A BREAK ANDREW!
By claiming that the Democrats were the enemies of the troops, traitors, quislings and wimps, Miller did exactly what he had the audacity to claim the Democrats were doing: making national security a partisan matter. I'm not easy to offend, but this speech was gob-smackingly vile.
He never said they were enemies he said they were playing politics and were short sighted about it. This is a far far cry from calling them enemies.
Yes, that describes some on the left, but it is a calumny against Democrats who voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq and whose sincerity, as John McCain urged, should not be in question. I have never heard Kerry say that 9/11 was America's fault; if I had, it would be inconceivable to consider supporting him. And so this was, in truth, another lie, another cheap, faux-patriotic smear.
Read Andrew, read. He said the party, not the man. You yourself has said over and over that the Democrats in the grips of the most rabid leftists. The Deaniacs are just those people and THAT is who Zell is speaking about.
THE FOREIGN AGENT: Another lie: "Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide." Miller might have found some shred of ancient rhetoric that will give him cover on this, but in Kerry's very acceptance speech, he declared the opposite conviction - that he would never seek permission to defend this country.
Sure he’s said that now but he’s reversed himself so many times who can keep up. He’s said over and over we "rushed" to war and we did so "unilaterally" meaning, he would not go unless the UN, France and Germany were on board. THAT IS THE PROOF. That he reversed himself several times on this issue would make Kerry bulletproof under Sullivan’s logic.
Another lie: "John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war." Kerry didn't want to do that. Yes, he used his military service in the campaign - but it was his opponents who decided to dredge up the divisions of the Vietnam war in order to describe Kerry as a Commie-loving traitor who faked his own medals.
Pure bullshit. The Swifties made an issue of the medals. They are INDEPENDENT OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. They never said he was Commie loving, that’s a lie. They said his speeches aided the enemy and they had to hear them while being tortured. Both of those statements are undeniably true.
Appealing to the crudest form of patriotism and the easiest smears is wrong when it is performed by the lying Michael Moore and it is wrong when it is spat out by Zell Miller. Last night was therefore a revealing night for me. I watched a Democrat at a GOP Convention convince me that I could never be a Republican. If they wheel out lying, angry old men like this as their keynote, I'll take Obama. Any day.
So now you admit Michael Moore is part of the Democrat machine? That’s interesting. EVERYTHING Moore has said is far more disingenuous and hateful than anything Miller said. Goodbye Andrew and good riddance. You gave up on the GOP as soon as they refused to not just tolerate but endorse your lifestyle. I expect you to reject your faith as well. That group is NEVER EVER going to accept homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. It is one thing to refuse to support the party's candidate if you don't believe in the party but Andrew is coming so close to supporting Kerry without actually supporting him it's galling. GET OFF THE FENCE. This election matters like none other our lifetime. We are at war and if you're willing to sit this one out and not cast your lot with one side or the other, you're naive, shortsighted and stupid. Kerry has publicly declared he will bring the US troops home before the end of his first term. That is putting an end date on success in Iraq. The message to the terrorists/insurgents is; make it to that date and you win. You don't have to win any other way. Just make it to the date. Sheer lunacy. We didn't go to WWII with an "exit strategy" and we didn't slough off the rebuilding and leave it to the UN or anyone else. If we had, the USSR would have likely had ALL of Germany in it grip and who knows how much worse off Europe would have been today without Germany's economic might to propel them this far.
On Cheney:
There are no problems in Iraq. Everything is peachy. Democracy is breaking out everywhere; no mistakes have been made; no rethinking is necessary after the travails of the occupation (sorry, Zell). I understand the political need to put a gloss on things. But the surrealism of the rhetoric is, in some respects, an insult to the American people, who deserve a real accounting of where we are.
That’s precisely NOT the point of the convention. Again, you’re selling a candidate and if you start listing your mistakes, you opponent is going to eat you alive. Since Kerry is the ABB candidate you can’t give him fuel. If he has to be for something he will lose. The minute you give him something to crow about, like failures and missteps you re-energize his campaign.
Of all the difficult choices we have to make - in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia - nothing is spoken. There is not even a nod to reality. Just an assertion that only the Republicans have the balls to fight this war. It may well work in the election. But it speaks to the character of our leaders that they prefer bromides and denial to a real accounting and real leadership.
Wrong wrong wrong. They absolutely did talk about the hard choices and burdens endured by our troops and their families. The hard choices about going to war and risking the lives of those same people. Every day for the last four years he's had his ass on the line. Much of this is unsaid because it doesn't have to be said. There are tens of thousands of men and women shouldering that burden in Iraq so we don't have to here at home.
Comments