Mitch Berg accuses us of beating GOP volunteers
There's been a heated, and up until now civil, discussion about the VP debate over at Mitch Berg's blog, Shot in the Dark.
After I posted the list of times (twice) Cheney has presided over the Senate, here's his response:
And again - so what?
I've listened to that piece of the debate, and it's pretty clear that the "never met him" line was a combination misstatement and knock on Edwards' pathetic attendance record.
As to the WMD "lie" - well, you have to manipulate the facts pretty hard to get to that answer.
If this is the best you got out of the debate (and on listening further, it pretty much was), I can see why you're turning to beating up GOPer volunteers. [Links were added by me. –Ed.]
I hope Mitch has the deceny to apologize for accusing us of resorting to violence ("analog brownshirts" - his term), when all we're actually doing is presenting him with facts and trying to have a conversation.
posted by Chuck Olsen @ 5:05 AM |
| 
9 Comments:
Chuck, the "you" was a "y'all", and I suspect you know it. But, OK, Chuck - sorry about any perceived insult. It was hyperbole for effect...
...as was, I suspect, Cheney's original remark, which after about ten listens was fairly clearly a hyperbolic reference to Edwards' attendance and (nonexistent) record in the Senate. Point being, it's a sign of desperation on the Dems part; little signs, like pecking away at sideshow issues like Cheney's breakfast schedule, and big signs, like the incidents in Florida, Wisconsin, Saint Paul and elsewhere.
Hey, "New Patriot" - are we going to see a condemnation of the thuggery of the AFL-CIO? Three offices attacked in one day, all amazingly enough in battleground states. Odd, innit?
Yo Mitch, you may want to direct some of that discussion toward people like me: self-styled lefties who nonetheless are not impressed with the Democratic organization. People who seriously considered Wesley Clark, and John McCain before him. People who might hold out a shred of hope for y'all, if the right sort of Conservative were to come along, and champion the sort of well-respected pragmatism that Conservatism is sometimes said to be.
From my perspective, if Cheney has such a strong and broad-based command over the most obscure facts and figures re: health care costs, unemployment, etc. (and stuff on his Republican Talking Points(tm) list), then it's not unfair to expect him to speak truth about his own first-hand experiences. He didn't say, "I've seen you around Washington here and there, but never at your job in the Senate;" he said "I've never met you before today." And that's demonstrably untrue.
And the "it's just hyperbole, for effect, like in a debate" argument does not wash, in a race where every last punctuation mark is so scrutinized by the other campaign, the lay observers on both sides, and (in lieu of actual journalism) Jon Stewart. Either Cheney should have known better than to try and get away with something so sensationalistic, he felt confident nobody would seriously try to refute or fact-check it, he felt confident nobody could, or he just plain whiffed it. So your choices are 'carelessness,' or 'arrogance.' You've taken 'honest mistake' off the table. Not what I would do, but suit yourself.
It's a hard life here in the fields of Blogistan, dude. But there's plenty of room. And we who would be moderates, if we felt there were any remaining powerful moderates to get behind, usually take our deep reserves of idealism and frustration and side with the left because the right seems so much more shrill and defensive at times like this.
They don't convince me they want what's best for the country. They seem like they just HATE TO LOSE, and they hate the appearance of the possibility of losing, even when they're not. They're the people who cheat on their taxes. They're the parents who scream at kids' soccer coaches. We can forgive both sides a little for doing the crap we all do, the mistakes we all make... but we don't want intellectual road-ragers in charge of the country.
This post is already too long, but one more thing. In a larger sense, this attitude is why the middle of the road can forgive Powell for trying to do his job, maybe even forgive Bush for starting out believing he was right. We can understand why we're in Iraq, but we also understand that we need to win not because it's a New American Century, but so we can get the hell out.
We can't abide knowing that Dick Clarke did way more than he should have needed to, and still wasn't listened to. We can't deal with Rudy Guiliani whoring himself out to the GOP. This is the kind of thing my people mean, when we say "anybody but Bush" and "John Kerry is a douchebag, but..."
And I swear to god, we are going to decide this election.
-Erik
I can't speak for the whole group, Mitch, but I don't support anyone pulling any sort of thuggery to get their message across. That being said, I don't think it is our job/responsibility/whatever to come out and condemn the actions of a few that just happen to agree with us on some issues. We are not those people just as you are not one of the people harassing women outside of the abortion clinic in Minneapolis every weekend. Now let's get back to tearing down our respective rivals in the race for George W. Bush's job.
"Hey, "New Patriot" - are we going to see a condemnation of the thuggery of the AFL-CIO? Three offices attacked in one day, all amazingly enough in battleground states. Odd, innit?"
This is the self-same tactic that Tom Delay's minions used to stop the counting of votes in Florida. So, I'd say that this is merely another example of his "leadership" at work.
I don't remember any apology when it was American citizens' votes at stake. So, if some apology is in order the perpetrators would be the place to go. Make sure there are cameras present to record that apology as well as the litany of factors that caused that frustration to build up now.
"He didn't say, "I've seen you around Washington here and there, but never at your job in the Senate;" he said "I've never met you before today." And that's demonstrably untrue. "
Well thought out post and completely true. I'm wondering, however, if the Veep's statement that was so mean-spirited, pointless and demonstrably wrong was inserted as a deliberate distraction. Who cares if he met or did not meet John Edwards or actually *did* his job of presiding over the Senate by making contact with the 100 collegues he needed to work with? What Cheney has been lying about all along was the rationale for going to war with a toothless tiger (as the report of Iraq's weapons capability released yesterday makes clear) while permitting more dangerous states like Iran and North Korea to develop not only nuclear weapons but the armies and delivery systems to use them!
He's a liar. Point made! He's used those talents to squander American defense resources, caused more than 1,000 American deaths, caused thousands and thousands of civilian casualties in Iraq, piled up a huge national debt that has only *begun* the process of weakening this country economically, and driven a wedge between us and nearly every viable alliance we held before the Bush administration took office. Those are the points to be hammering home in my opinion.
Boy Erik, talk about putting so eloquently into words, the frustrations we feel.
This was beautiful:
""(Moderates) usually take our deep reserves of idealism and frustration and side with the left because the right seems so much more shrill and defensive at times like this.""
If they would only apply their logic consistently to both sides of the aisle, we could have an honest debate. But it isn't about honest debate, it is about winning at all costs. Cheney can point blank lie and deceive and they call it a mistatement and "that's not what he meant" and we are suppose to take it at face. Kerry could say 'Us' instead of 'We' and they call him on a flip flop. It is really a shame!
But for them it is also about clogging up our resources bickering with them, instead of spending that time getting our message out. We need to call them out when necessary but not necessarily get caught up in a dispute. If they chose not to conduct an honest dialogue, where the criteria is consitent on both sides, then it isn't worth our time to begin with
Flash
Centrisity
Thanks for the kind words, Flash. But I think there's at least some value in slogging it out, to a certain extent. I think there ARE people out there who are as yet undicided. There are people who may not vote at all, unless they feel a personal stake in the outcome. I'm idealistic enough to think that our petty squabbling might serve to point out the general contours of where the sides differ, and that could matter. Getting bogged down is pointless, but getting a little mud on our suits is what this great nation's politcal tradition has always been about.
-Erik
Mitch: Thanks. We're cool and the gang.
I suspected hyperbole, or maybe even a joke, but tensions are high. Either side throwing out "brownshirts" [I know, Gore started it] or accusing people of violence - or worse, committing it - is just not helping anything. And yes, I heartily condemn those GOP office attacks. You want me to condemn swastikas burned into laws too? Done!
Obviously there are fringes on both sides, and right now the right is in power and has created (especially for the fringe left) a nightmare those people want to destroy. Although from my limited knowledge, this isn't the fringe left, but union-organized protests that got out of hand. They're making Democrats look bad - we don't want or need support from people like that.
[laws = lawns]
Post a Comment
<< Home