Liberal Enemies
There are plenty of reasons to oppose John McCain's candidacy, as well as slamming the man himself. By all accounts, McCain is a potential national nightmare, though not that long ago he was perhaps the most popular Republican among Clinton/Gore liberals.
Times and tastes change.
Ask Joe Lieberman who, if many liberals had their wish, would be completing his second term as vice-president, even while he is despised by leading libloggers.
Today, liberals paint McCain in freakish colors, portraying him as a mentally unstable warmonger who, if elected, will essentially be Bush/Cheney's third term. This could very well be so, but these fears alone will not suffice. Certain libs are going further, employing the right wing tactic of questioning McCain's "patriotism."
John Aravosis of Americablog recently wrote, "A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? . . . Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience."
Disloyalty. The Enemy. Boy, do some liberals love using those words. Wave Old Glory to show who the "real" patriots are. A rancid, inevitable display, though in this case it's even more distasteful. You wouldn't know from Aravosis's post that McCain was in captivity because he was part of a criminal assault on Vietnam in which the US and its subordinates slaughtered millions.
Plus, given the inconvenient fact that the US never formally declared war on Vietnam, those resisting the murderous attacks could not be accurately described as "the enemy," unless one feels, as apparently does Aravosis, that anyone whom the US bombs and herds into camps immediately becomes "the enemy," regardless of the actual circumstances.
Normally, I'd chalk this up to a blind Dem desire to win the White House at any cost, using any and all tactics to make this a reality. While this is certainly true with Aravosis, one cannot overlook the historical lib love of war, Vietnam being a bloody case in point.
The idea that the Democratic Party is structurally antiwar is of course ridiculous, considering the easily-researched history to the contrary. Apart from all that, however, Aravosis's line, "Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience," reveals much about his mindset.
First, would he say the same about a Dem candidate who behaved exactly as did McCain? Please. More importantly, what would constitute serious "command experience"? Flying numerous bombing runs on Vietnamese civilian targets, not getting shot down, then receiving the Medal of Honor for distinguished service to the homeland?
You can bet that if this was on Obama's resume, liberals like Aravosis would never shut up about it, citing such barbarism as a genuinely American foundation for "leadership." Sadly enough, they would be right.
I don't know about you, but I can't wait to see what's on tap for July. John McCain: Soviet stooge?
Times and tastes change.
Ask Joe Lieberman who, if many liberals had their wish, would be completing his second term as vice-president, even while he is despised by leading libloggers.
Today, liberals paint McCain in freakish colors, portraying him as a mentally unstable warmonger who, if elected, will essentially be Bush/Cheney's third term. This could very well be so, but these fears alone will not suffice. Certain libs are going further, employing the right wing tactic of questioning McCain's "patriotism."
John Aravosis of Americablog recently wrote, "A lot of people don't know, however, that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain's military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief? . . . Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience."
Disloyalty. The Enemy. Boy, do some liberals love using those words. Wave Old Glory to show who the "real" patriots are. A rancid, inevitable display, though in this case it's even more distasteful. You wouldn't know from Aravosis's post that McCain was in captivity because he was part of a criminal assault on Vietnam in which the US and its subordinates slaughtered millions.
Plus, given the inconvenient fact that the US never formally declared war on Vietnam, those resisting the murderous attacks could not be accurately described as "the enemy," unless one feels, as apparently does Aravosis, that anyone whom the US bombs and herds into camps immediately becomes "the enemy," regardless of the actual circumstances.
Normally, I'd chalk this up to a blind Dem desire to win the White House at any cost, using any and all tactics to make this a reality. While this is certainly true with Aravosis, one cannot overlook the historical lib love of war, Vietnam being a bloody case in point.
The idea that the Democratic Party is structurally antiwar is of course ridiculous, considering the easily-researched history to the contrary. Apart from all that, however, Aravosis's line, "Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience," reveals much about his mindset.
First, would he say the same about a Dem candidate who behaved exactly as did McCain? Please. More importantly, what would constitute serious "command experience"? Flying numerous bombing runs on Vietnamese civilian targets, not getting shot down, then receiving the Medal of Honor for distinguished service to the homeland?
You can bet that if this was on Obama's resume, liberals like Aravosis would never shut up about it, citing such barbarism as a genuinely American foundation for "leadership." Sadly enough, they would be right.
I don't know about you, but I can't wait to see what's on tap for July. John McCain: Soviet stooge?
posted by Dennis Perrin at
10:09 AM
<< Home