Times Union, August 18:
THE ISSUE:
Gov. Rick Perry starts his presidential campaign with violent, inflammatory rhetoric.
Inflammatory, yes. Violent? No. Lie #1.
THE STAKES:
America needs leaders, not panderers.
Then why do they support Obama?
We hardly expect the race for president to be kind and gentle. But is it too much to expect that it be decent and dignified? That someone who aspires to lead this nation act like a president, not some conspiracy theorist from the fringe?
Reverent Wright, anyone? Frank Marshall Davis, anyone? Decent and dignified? Like the guy that told his supporters to get in the face of "independents and Republicans"? Like that?
Treasonous? Really Mr. Perry? That's what you call an intelligent debate on economic policy?
No, it's a campaign speech meant to fire up a crowd, not a debate. Lie #2, distorting the setting and tone of a statement in order to deride it. How about Obama's "gun to the head" and Biden's 'GOP has acted like terrorists' statements? Intelligent debate on economic policy? Nice double-standard you got there...good work if you can get it.
Such characterizations may appeal to tea party demagogues and other elements of the far right,
Demagogues? In what way are the tea party demagogues? They say we spend too much and S&P downgrades the USA's credit rating for spending too much. Sounds like they're telling the truth...It's lie #3 to lie about liars, liars.
and to those who believe the Fed is part of an ages-old plot by some secret cabal out to rule the world.
Lie #4 - That's what you call an intelligent debate on economic policy?
It's not the kind of talk we want from an American president.
You prefer 'gun to the head' and 'terrorist'? That's what you call an intelligent debate on economic policy?
And however folksy Mr. Perry may sound, suggesting that someone ought to be treated "pretty ugly" is an unacceptable, and unpresidential, endorsement of violence.
Lie #5 - no it isn't, your intentional misinterpretation of colloquialisms notwithstanding. How about calling the GOP terrorists? Is that acceptable? Presidential? Not an endorsement of violence? How about "get a little bloody"? Is that an endorsement of violence? How about, as the Times Union editors have said in the past, the GOP's 'feet should be held to the fire'? Is that an endorsement of violence?
Lie #6 - he didn't "suggest" that someone "ought to be treated" any way, he stated how someone would be treated, you know, "pretty ugly", like how the TU is treating Perry, the massive threat to their hero that has them passing masonry daily.
He might recall how this kind of rhetoric failed to play to the majority of Americans in 2008, a fact that Republican nominee John McCain discovered only too late. After whipping up crowds by depicting Barack Obama as a friend of terrorists and a threat to the nation, Mr. McCain tried to back off the hostility weeks before the election, saying that his opponent was "a decent person" whom voters did not have to fear.
Lie #7 - McCain lost because of violent rhetoric about Obama? What planet am I on? Wait, wasn't it Joe Biden that just called John McCain's party a bunch of terrorists? And didn't Obama actually pal around with terrorists? Why, yes, yes he did.
Perhaps Mr. Perry will yet hear and heed the warnings from Republican colleagues like strategist Karl Rove
Lie #8 - dragging out the liberal boogeyman Karl Rove, suddenly the voice of reason, and trying to drape him around the neck of Rick Perry, despite the fact that Rove is about as anti-Perry as is the Washington Post. Just because they both vote Republican doesn't make them "colleagues", and trying to tie them together to make a point is dishonest, a lie.
Maybe Mr. Perry, and everyone else in this race, will realize that what America needs isn't leaders who play to the worst in people's guts, but who inspire them with what's best in their hearts.
You mean like "acted stupidly", "get in their face", "they acted like terrorists", "they bring a knife, we bring a gun", "bitter clingers"? Like that? How about the campaign of their hero and current President in 2008 featuring this attack on the guy that wasn't even running:
“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.”Yeah. Like that?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment