Breaking Political Stories and Commentary. "We're at the height of the Roman Empire for the Republican Party, but the tide slowly but surely goes out." --Republican US Senator Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
The Imperial President's Tenuous Relationship with American Values
Published on September 2, 2004 By blogic In Politics
In Slate today:
In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power -- the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.

Are you prepared to become one of those countries?

When patriotism is impugned, the facts go out the window. You're not allowed to point out that Bush shifted the rationale for the Iraq war further and further from U.S. national security -- from complicity in 9/11 to weapons of mass destruction to building democracy to relieving Iraqis of their dictator -- without explaining why American troops and taxpayers should bear the burden. You're not allowed to point out that the longer a liberator stays, the more he looks like an occupier. You're not allowed to propose that the enormous postwar expenses Bush failed to budget for be covered by repealing his tax cuts for the wealthy instead of further indebting every American child.

If you dare to say these things, you're accused -- as Kerry now stands accused by Cheney and Miller -- of defaming America and refusing "to support American troops in combat." You're contrasted to a president who "is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America." You're derided, in Cheney's words, for trying to show al-Qaida "our softer side." Your Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts are no match for the vice president's five draft deferments.
This is a great piece on the dangerous use of patriotism by the Bush campaign.

Three blocks away from me, in Union Square park, there are signs up reading "Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home". This is how the left must respond to the efforts of Bush to paint us as anti-American. There's nothing more American than wanting to protect the lives of American boys (and girls) from deaths in a war that's distraction from fighting our real enemies: the terrorists who flew planes into the towers that were not two miles from where I sit now.

There's nothing more American than allowing our doctors to study ways to protect our elderly loved ones from succumbing to the horrible disease of Alzheimer's. George Bush should be ashamed that he ignored Nancy Reagan's pleas to give hope to the final years of her husband's life.

There's nothing more American than wanting to protect the Blue Ridge Mountains from the desolation caused by unchecked coal mining, where mountains are flattened, and the grimy runoff is allowed to to creep up the once green valley walls. All of this because the Bush administration has redefined this black sludge as "fill" instead of "waste". This is a desecration of the legacy of Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, a true conservationist who knew that a "Conservative" tries to preserve what's good about our nation, for future generations.

Comments
on Sep 02, 2004
Not much I can add to this, but I did want to acknowledge the article's existence.
on Sep 02, 2004
Very good observation. Will anyone argue with this?
on Sep 02, 2004
I'm curious. Are you attempting to draw a distinction between Bush and Kerry here?
For those of us that are not prepared to become the type of country that you describe here, what is our alternative?......Kerry?
The same Kerry that has done everything in his power to silence the voices of all the Vietnam vets that do not support him? The same Kerry that attempts to discourage book stores from selling a book that does not show him favor (while there are numerous books that blast Bush to no end) The same Kerry that files complaints with the FEC to block the Swift Boat ads while Moveon.org has been doing the same for over a year. Only now Kerry denounces the "Move on" smear campaign against Bush when it serves him to do so.

If you are trying to convince me that under Bush I have had and will have to endure mass censorship....explain to me how opposing Kerry is any different. Based on his own attempts at censorship, I'm not impressed.
on Sep 04, 2004
"FREEDOM'S END"

Yikes, this apocalyptic crap cracks me up.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Sep 05, 2004
I have to side with zObelisk on this one, Kerry IS more restrictive on free speech, no telling how more restrictive he will be if elected.
on Sep 05, 2004
Nice article blogic.
I am really sick of all the name calling and the, challenge of character, in this Presidential campaign. It stinks and is unproductive rhetoric that continues to split this nation.
It's become, not who you like anymore. It's become, who you dislike the most.

Unpratriatic?
I can remember some Congressman and Senators being called unpatriatic for not going along with President, regarding the, going to War in Iraq.
These, elected officials, were merely stating their conscience. It had nothing to do with patriatism.
It's Democracy in action. Vote for what you believe.

"Enjoy the day"
on Sep 05, 2004
anyone watch the daily show?

jon stewart on zell miller:
HOW DARE...THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...FIELD A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!!! IN AN ELECTION YEAR, NO LESS!

quotes that are fun to bring up in any 'democrats aren't as patriotic' gunfig-. er, i mean online debate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/27730/
But in this war, Republicans aren't bashing the anti-war movement. They're leading it.

4. We can't win. "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag," warned Nickles. DeLay agreed: "He's stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ... The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He's much stronger with his allies, Russians and others." Clinton "has no plan for the end" and "recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power," added DeLay. "The bombing was a mistake. ... And this president ought to show some leadership and admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end."

5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda. On Meet the Press, Defense Secretary William Cohen argued that Yugoslavia had underestimated NATO's resolve more than NATO had underestimated Yugoslavia's, and Joint Chiefs vice chairman Gen. Joseph Ralston asserted that Milosevic "had already started his campaign of killing" before NATO intervened. Nickles dismissed both arguments. "This war is not going well," he declared. "I heard Secretary Cohen say, 'Well, Milosevic miscalculated how, you know, steadfast we would be in the bombing campaign.' But frankly ... we grossly miscalculated what Milosevic's response would be." Later, Nickles volunteered, "I would take a little issue with [what] Gen. Ralston said. ... The number of killings prior to the bombing, I think, has been exaggerated." Moreover, given NATO's desperate need to "bring Milosevic to the table," DeLay cautioned, "It is not helpful for the president's spin machine to be out there right now saying that Milosevic is weakening." The truth, said DeLay, is that "nothing has changed."


7. We have no choice but to compromise. Unless Clinton finds "a way to get the bombing stopped" and to "get Milosevic to pull back his troops" voluntarily, NATO faces "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war," warned Lott. Clinton "only has two choices," said DeLay--to "occupy Yugoslavia and take Milosevic out" or "to negotiate some sort of diplomatic end, diplomatic agreement in order to end this failed policy."


make note of the use of the word quagmire in group 7.

on Sep 05, 2004
blogic:

Interesting that someone would call what you are saying "apocalyptic", never actually question anything your wrote and then added "cheers" as if they salute the apocalypse! This must mean you touched something sensitive (like a nerve).

The real question for your readers is: if you agree with the blog, what are you going to do about it?
on Sep 05, 2004
Furthering the discussion about Republicans vs. Democrats on censorship:

I seem to remember that it was the wife of a DEMOCRATIC senator (and later vice president) that led the PMRC hearings in the 80's that led to the "parental advisory" labels, and consequently, to CENSORED versions of many CD's sold by the world's largest retailer.
on Sep 05, 2004
A couple of points:

Isn't calling someone unpatriotic free speech also? The right to question someone's patriotism is just as allowed under the right of free speech as the right to question a president's motives.

If I call someone's views unpatriotic and they subsequently choose to not voice their opinions, did I take away their right to voice their opinions, or did they voluntarily choose to not speak due to their reluctance to hear a negative reaction to their views? It would be their choice.

My point is that to present a contrary or negative view of other's opinions is not stifling free speech, and claiming that those negative views do so or that they are 'an end to freedom' is only an attempt to designate certain negative views as being not allowed in free speech.
on Sep 05, 2004
Censoring someone's free speech because it speaks against you or censoring someone's free speech because of National Sercurity, if I had to choose between the two, which is the case in America and other countries with Democracy as well, I would always support censoring someone's free speech because of National Security.
So my question is:
Why is a prominent nuclear physicist allowed to get away with trading secrets to another nation even if they are an ally scot-free without any punishment than is allowed to go over to that allied country and teach people about what he stole from the United States, while if somebody speaks out against a political candidate in a "non-violent" way gets shouted at and condemned and has people asking the President of the United States to condemn and take away their free speech? Is this the right course? Should we be taking this course out sheer spite of hatred against each other?

As for Bosnia, once again the U.S. is STILL there, when it should have been entirely a UN (mostly European Nations) Action. European Nations, because they are the next door neighbors, if they can't control their own backyard, are we supposed to take advice on what the U.S. should do. If we did, would we just forget our obligations to Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bosnia that take precedence over the UN telling us what to do with our obligations, boils down to a Catch 22. Korea likes us, in fact they say we are being to soft with Kim Jong IL, which is probably because it's a messy situation. Japan likes us, even though we differ on some opinions, both cultures seem to be influencing the other, we like Sony, they like the GAP (American styled clothing). As for Bosnia, I am not entirely sure haven't read anything on it, except we should have taken harsher action and ousted Milosevic by force, than again Slovenia who just entered the E.U. has somet hings to say as well on the whole matter as well as Bosnia. Afghanistan and Iraq, it's a religious difference, if we were entirely a muslim nation than who would be complaining, granted the innocent people do get harmed, but when ever you have two sides shooting, and innocent people are around, bullets do stray, ricochet, etc.sad but true. It's funny really Islamic Nations see as a Christian Nation, while Christian Nations don't think we are Christian enough. We are the United States of America, and the last time I checked their was not a single authorized State Religion for the entire US of A, sorry but there is no Church of the United States of America, like England, we are many beliefs, many races, many people, and not one person makes or breaks our nation, we are united in one common thing, we are citizens of the United States of America, and if you don't like it, you have the freedom to speak out about it, and just like Johnny Depp, leave the United States if you hate it so much. Yet the people who seem to hate it so much, must love the country for they stay and keep yelling how they hate it.

It's not a matter of patriotism or unpatriotism (if that's a word), we are FREE to decide who we are and what we are, and the United States Military is making sure that it stays that way, which is why many nations with Tyrants and Loonies hate the U.S. because it is a glaring example and symbol to the people in which they are trying to rule that you can be free to decide your own damn life, just like how we have the freedom to post on this forum. We are the Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave (Turner would like it so say Braves), so I leave you with the FREEDOM to decide on your OWN opinions, and to VOICE those opinions.
on Sep 10, 2004
Free to yell fire in a theater when there isn't one? Impugning a party that can only fight back with spitballs? Give me a break.
on Sep 11, 2004
Free to yell fire in a theater when there isn't one?


That's a fun thing to do, also don't forget some other fun phrases to say around crowds.
'This man has EBOLA' (have somebody painted up to look sick and watch people run)
'I have a stiffy!!' look at all the weird looks you will get from people
etc.
on Sep 11, 2004
The same Kerry that has done everything in his power to silence the voices of all the Vietnam vets that do not support him? The same Kerry that attempts to discourage book stores from selling a book that does not show him favor (while there are numerous books that blast Bush to no end)


Apparently he doesn't have much power to silence them, then. And there is nothing wrong with a candidate protesting what he feels is slander/libel and asking for (not demanding, not suing for) a sympathetic boycott. Certainly, the GOP has been willing to do so -- or have we so quickly forgotten that there were attempts to encourage theater owners not to book "Farenheit 9/11" (some of whom did so)? Kerry could bring court cases, I suppose, truly drawing upon "everything in his power," but out of campaign wisdom (?) the legal protests have been fairly small in number.

Look, some of the Kerry campaign's (and those sympathetic to the campaign) strategies have bugged me. But I see these tactics as, for lack of a better term, "desperate" measures in response to the tactics of the GOP and Bush-Cheney campaign. I worry that Democrats lose more than they gain from mirroring and matching GOP campaign strategies. Point out one nationally aired MoveOn ad that was as egregious in its claims as Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth prior to the SBVftT ads. Now, they seem to have abandoned what appeared to be the ineffective moral high-ground in favor of decending even further into the muck to join the GOP.

Even so, ask yourself this:

*which campaign has required attendees at a rally to sign voting commitment oaths to attend the rally?
*which candidate has refused to condemn an obviously condemnable ad but instead called for the limitation of a campaign "loophole" that allows citizens to organize and have a voice in the political process?
*which candidate is attempting to pull out of a scheduled debate because the organizers cannot assure that the audience will be made up of undecided voters?
*which campaign has told us that voting for anybody but them will practically assure more terrorist attacks?

No, Kerry's stance on Freedom of Speech doesn't scare me in the least. President Bush, on the other hand...