September 04, 2004
Word Note: Democrat talking points...
When you criticize Kerry's war service, (or Max Cleland's vote against Homeland Security) that's "attacking his patriotism."
Now there's a new trope. If you criticize Kerry's senate record, that's "Hatred."
Here's an example in an editorial in the Manchester Union Leader:
...After Cheney and Miller criticized Sen. Kerry’s voting record, which the Massachusetts senator found so embarrassing that he barely referenced it during his own convention speech, his running-mate, Sen. John Edwards, said in response: “There was a lot of hate coming from that podium tonight.”...What there actually was was scorn and harsh criticism. You might even go so far as to say the critics "hated" Kerry's mushy record on defense and anti-communism. But Edwards is trying to leave the impression that this is personal hatred of the sort which should lead us to ignore the criticisms, to dismiss them as the products of blind enmity, not logic.
What's missing is any Dem saying: "The critics are wrong, because of reasons A, B, and C." All they can do is claim "hatred." This is particularly noticeable in the case of Zell Miller, because when Miller gave Clinton's keynote , the same sort of people thought he was their fair-haired boy! A "Southern statesman!" Amazin' how much a guy's personality can change in four years.
Now Ken Layne writes:
I grew up in the South, surrounded by sons of bitches like Zell Miller -- bitter old nigger-haters who couldn't possibly understand why they weren't right about anything -- and this dixiecrat piece of shit is probably the best advertisement for the Bush Administration's Compassionate Conservatism we've ever seen...I predict this will be useful as a perfect example of a circular argument. Miller helps those racist Republicans, so he's obviously a "nigger-hater." And how do we know the Republicans are racists? It's obvious--they are embracing "nigger-haters" like Miller.
But seriously folks, what Ken is saying is hate speech. (And I'm not endorsing the idea that there should be special laws against hate speech.) But that's what it is. Miller's the guy who removed the Confederate Battle Flag from the Georgia State flag! Until this week nobody seriously considered him to be a racist. He is known for one racist-sounding remark, but that was in a bitter political contest, 40 years ago. For which he has expressed his regret.
For the Dems to use this tactic is a sign of their bankruptacy...in about five different ways.
Just to set the record straight, Zell Miller did not get the Confederate battle emblem removed from the state flag. He tried and made a great speech explaining his reasons it should be done, but the initiative failed, one of the few times Zig Zag Zell couldn't get what he wanted. It took two more governors and a couple of sneaky maneuvers to finally remove the emblem, and there are still some "flaggots" who are really pissed about it.
Posted by: Myshkin at September 4, 2004 10:09 PMA vote from the citizens via referendum is a sneaky maneuver?
Posted by: RW at September 5, 2004 05:57 AMOnce again, we see Kerry's willingness to use gasoline in an attempt to smother a fire.
If any examination of his record from Vietnam to his ineptness at the DNC is a hateful attack, what will the rationale be for differentiating genuinely hateful attacks on him?
Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at September 5, 2004 05:58 AM
