Democrats defensive about their patriotism again
The NY Times has a long article about Democrat concerns for repeat of the 1988 race where Dukakis had trouble defending his stand on the pledge of allegiance and whether he would want the death penalty for someone who raped and killed his wife.
From reading what Axelrod said you might think that Bush came by his low rating on his own and not as the result of a unrelenting campaign of lies and distortions by Democrats about the war in Iraq and every other issue they could think of. They have acted in bad faith on the war for months in a desperate attempt to lose it. They have called him a liar when they know that is not true.
If the Times were not a liberal Democrat paper they could construct a story of the false image the Democrats have tried to portray of the President as a lying bumbler, and ask if the Republicans can overcome the deliberate deceit and distortion of the Democrats that have already started with their allegation that John McCain wants another 100 years of war in Iraq.
The fact is that the Democrats have been the least loyal opposition party since the Democrats in the Civil War. John McCain is probably to nice to define them that way, but they have earned that title. It will probably take some conservative bloggers to notice.
In the meantime, Democrats should buckle their chin straps and get ready to be held accountable for their conduct and for the issues they have pushed to the detriment of this country like an energy policy that has sent the cost of gas through the roof.
...Reread Axelrod statement and note how unfairly he attacks the President Bush. The economy is for from abysmal. In fact while George Bush was in office Obama went from a guy whose credit card was refused in 2000 to become a multi millionaire and the Clinton's net worth soared to over $100 million. How could they do that in an "abysmal" economy? The unemployment rate under Bush is less than it was under Clinton. How could that happen in an abysmal economy?
The memory of that campaign — reinforced, for many, by the attacks on Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam war record in the 2004 election — haunts Democrats of a certain generation.
...
“The question,” Mr. Axelrod said, “is whether given the abysmal state of our economy, given the war, given all the challenges that people sense we face that have led George Bush to have the lowest rating ever, do you believe that voters are going to be distracted from the fundamental need for change? I think the answer to that is no.”
...
From reading what Axelrod said you might think that Bush came by his low rating on his own and not as the result of a unrelenting campaign of lies and distortions by Democrats about the war in Iraq and every other issue they could think of. They have acted in bad faith on the war for months in a desperate attempt to lose it. They have called him a liar when they know that is not true.
If the Times were not a liberal Democrat paper they could construct a story of the false image the Democrats have tried to portray of the President as a lying bumbler, and ask if the Republicans can overcome the deliberate deceit and distortion of the Democrats that have already started with their allegation that John McCain wants another 100 years of war in Iraq.
The fact is that the Democrats have been the least loyal opposition party since the Democrats in the Civil War. John McCain is probably to nice to define them that way, but they have earned that title. It will probably take some conservative bloggers to notice.
In the meantime, Democrats should buckle their chin straps and get ready to be held accountable for their conduct and for the issues they have pushed to the detriment of this country like an energy policy that has sent the cost of gas through the roof.
Comments
Post a Comment