|
|
<< Arnie & Tribes Agree to Casino Unions | Main | Police State USA >> August 31, 2004In the Heart of DarknessDick Cheney sat just a few rows in front of me. Thousands of Republicans pumped there fists, yelling "woo, woo, woo" as Rudy Guiliani disgraced the memories of our dead neighbors in his partisan rant-- a skilled rant filled with the lies we've come to expect-- but it was almost a comfort to have any residual positive feelings for Rudy from his unifying role on 9-11 dissolve as he laundered that goodwill into partisan bile. Having marched with the hundreds of thousands of protesters on Sunday, it was almost surreal to be sitting in the stands at the GOP Convention, courtesy of a press pass from my gig at the Progressive Populist. But heck, it couldn't be stranger than for Michael Moore, who John McCain referred to as a "disengenous filmmaker", leading the crowd to drown him out in roars as they pointed at Moore sitting in the press gallery. Moore smiled and tipped his hat to the crowd, soon leaving for the television interviews that would have to follow. The lies of the night are that skilled Bushian variety. Any individual sentence is merely exaggerated or bent just a little, but paragraphs are constructed to convey ideas that are complete lies. The classic of the night was of course the endless-- we needed to respond to 911. We had to defeat Al Qaeda, so we had to go to Afghanistan. And of course we had to fight terror by Saddam Hussein, making a link that has been repeatedly proven to be a lie. Or Rudy's comment that Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction, a way to repeat a lie, refuse to apologize for the lie. Or the man from the Justice Department who defended the Patriot Act. He attacked critics for saying that the Patriot Act allowed searches of peoples' homes without informing them of the search. He said that was untrue, since judges had to issue warrants. That nonsequitor, seeming to refute the charge, of course did nothing of the sort. It's a testament to how weak their arguments are that the GOPers won't make an honest case. Why not just say they are willing to trade off some civil liberties for greater security? It's a reasonable, defendable position, but one they know they would lose. So they lie. Or they can't just say it was good to remove Hussein because he was a dictator, a very reasonable position, since they know many will say, but couldn't that goal have been accomplished with less destruction of Iraq? So we had last night's spectacle. Interestingly, the crowd roared louder when Cheney's name was mentioned. Maybe it's because he was present, but it seemed reasonable that this crowd just feels more of a "red meat" connection to Cheney, who so unapologetically lies on behalf of the Iraq War, refusing to concede a point to reality. The negative attacks on Kerry are all part of the package. Us "Bush haters" don't have to attack Bush as a person, because we can name policy after policy we disagree with. But th Bush people know that Kerry's real position on the war-- it was neccessary to put pressure on Hussein, but the rush to war without finishing the inspections process and strengthening our alliances was a disaster-- is the position most Americans agree with. So they have to lie about Kerry's position and make him out to have changed his mind. They can't mention domestic issues, since they know on health care and taxes and jobs, Kerry's positions are more in tune with the country. They can't discuss the environment, since they know Kerry's positions are more popular. They can't mention civil rights given Bush's laxness in enforcement and promotion of antigay policies. So that leaves lies and the politicization of the 911 dead. Sitting in Madison Square Garden amidst the whoops for that policy, it makes me long to go read Pat Buchanan's new book. Where he hates, it's at least honest hate and bigotry, not the manufactured cynicism I experienced last night. Posted by Nathan at August 31, 2004 09:24 AM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsIt seems at this juncture the mass media has calculated that Bu$h is going to win because Kerry doesn't seem to have the balls to fight back. We've all watched as Bu$h's surrogates have savaged Kerry and all Kerry has done in return is whine at a high pitch and (sic) threaten lawsuits. If this is all Kerry has got in his trick bag then he's toast because Herr Rove is going to unleash lots more of the swiftvets type smears in Sept. and worse in Oct. It seems Kerry and Beth Cahill seem to think that once you get to the Pres. level politics is supposed to be more civil or genteel. To the contrary it drops down a notch deeper into the gutter. So, I guess we'll be seeing if John & Beth have what it takes soon enough and frankly I'm worried. Posted by: Glennk1949 at August 31, 2004 01:45 PM Nathan, Did you see any of Moore's interviews? I didn't, but I saw McCain interviewed twice (Larry King and Chris Matthews). That was one of my frustrations, really, with the whole night. I knew the Republicans would say what they did, and the crowd would love it. But I expected (don't ask me why) a more critical take from the commentators (with pols like JC Watts etc. excused). What I watched, which wasn't everything, left me MORE frustrated than I was listening to the GOP lies. Posted by: Kumar at August 31, 2004 02:23 PM Nathan -- Only a minor criticism; stop trying to defend Kerry's vote for the authorization of the use of force in Iraq. It was not the result of a nuanced political analysis about giving W. the authority to pressure Hussein. Rather, it was a craven act of political calculation, that it would do serious damage to Kerry's plans for 2004. Anyone with a brain, including most definitely you, Nathan, knew that W was planning to go to war. Andrew Card spoke about marketing it in the summer of 2002. Furthermore, W already had the ability to pressure Hussein -- he didn't need pre-approved Congressional authorization to launch a war. That's why the Constitution, in one of its better provisions, reserves that right to Congress -- if the Prez. wants a war, he has to go to Congress to get it authorized, presenting the circumstances that exist AT THE TIME to justify it. Everyone knew what W was going to do with that vote. For Kerry to claim otherwise is disingenuous. What he should have done in his Grand Canyon speech, rather than announce he would have voted the same way with the benefit of hindsight (and doubtless this is where James Rubin came to the conclusion that Kerry as President would have invaded Iraq, too, in all probability), he should have said that he might have voted the same way regardless of the WMDs, but he would certainly not have voted the same way now that he understands how reckless and dishonest W is. That would have shifted the debate to W's recklessness. Let the press have a field day with that, let them say that Kerry is badmouthing the president. The defense in truth is so obvious it would only have helped. Finally, I recommend taking a look at Tom Hayden's piece here: http://www.maxlogan.com/alternet.0827.htm, mostly for its discussion of the parallels with Humphrey 68. If Kerry loses this one (and it is still his to lose), it will be because of his continuing embrace of his vote. Democrats want a leader who will say that the Iraq war was a mistake that should not have happened. Posted by: Adam at September 1, 2004 10:07 AM Adam, while I agree with most of your post I do think you underestimate the difficulty of attempting to explain anything more complex than a sound bite. I wish the Dems had a candidate who had opposed the war from the start and who could articulate that position well, but do you really think that candidate would be tied in the polls right now, I am doubtful. Even Kerry's vote against the $87 billion is somehow too nuanced to explain, how complicated is it to say that he wanted it paid for! Where I think you are way off base is saying that if Kerry loses that it will be because of the Iraq vote. If he loses it will be for the same reason that Gore lost, the SCLM. I don't know if they are bought and paid for or just too damn lazy and do not give a damn but the mainstream media coverage is a disgrace and does not bode well for November. Posted by: Elcano at September 2, 2004 01:28 AM Don't be so bummed. This is exactly what Kerry Posted by: Ruester at September 2, 2004 04:19 AM Face it Kerry's toast. I say he is finshed, just like the last Mass. leftist to run. Posted by: Puff Driver at September 18, 2004 09:11 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|