August 30th, 2006
As we’ve come to expect from the Bush administration, its members and their supporters, when confronted with criticism, their immediate response has been to accuse their critics of: being terrorist sympathizers, disloyal Americans or, simply, traitors. So, of course, it’s no surprise that Donald Rumsfeld has resorted to the same old tactics. Here’s how the Washington Post reports Rumsfeld’s attacks against war critics:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned yesterday that "moral and intellectual confusion" over the Iraq war and the broader anti-terrorism effort could sap American willpower and divide the country, and he urged renewed resolve to confront extremists waging "a new type of fascism."
Drawing parallels to efforts by some nations to appease Adolf Hitler before World War II, Rumsfeld said it would be "folly" for the United States to ignore the rising dangers posed by a new enemy that he called "serious, lethal and relentless."
In a pointed attack on the news media and critics of President Bush’s war and national security policies, Rumsfeld declared: "Any kind of moral and intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can severely weaken the ability of free societies to persevere."
And while elected Democratic party members have released strong rebuttals against Rumsfeld’s attacks, I’ve not come across a more articulate response than Keith Olbermann’s on-air commentary:
And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism." As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that — though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
[...]
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute… I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow. But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed, "confused" or "immoral." Thus forgive me for reading Murrow in full: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954. "We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. "We will not walk in fear - one, of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men; "Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were - for the moment - unpopular."
Better yet, why don’t you check out Keith Olbermann’s entire video commentary, courtesy of Crooks and Liars:
March 16th, 2006
Nice to see that our homegrown Taliban, the same group that now exerts so much influence over the one party that rules our country, is still hard at work trying to liberate patriotic Americans from the vise of those evil doers in the Supreme Court. According to some reports, Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O’Connor were threatened with assassination after some Republican officials subtly (and sometimes not subtly) suggested that violence against judges was understandable, and perhaps excusable. Of course, these Republican officials made those statements at around the time of the 2004 Presidential elections, and they knew that such red meat comments would go over well with the Republican right wing base.
Here’s what the AP writes:
WASHINGTON (March 16) - Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor have been the targets of death threats from the "irrational fringe" of society, people apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.
Ginsburg revealed in a speech in South Africa last month that she and O’Connor were threatened a year ago by someone who called on the Internet for the immediate "patriotic" killing of the justices.
[...]
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter joked earlier this year that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. Over the past few months O’Connor has complained that criticism, mainly by Republicans, has threatened judicial independence to deal with difficult issues like gay marriage.
You gotta love how the so-called Liberal Media excuses their conservative darlings whenever they "joke" about killing a federal official. I mean, let’s say that Michael Moore joked about poisoning a Supreme Court Justice, do you think that the mainstream media would cuddle him like they still cuddle Coulter?
Hard to believe that the same woman that called for the killing of a Supreme Court Justice graced the cover of Time Magazine around this time last year — she’s certainly Ms. Right, and a great representative of everything that’s wrong with that other party and its supporters.
Update: AMERICAblog has a nice round up:
Delay threatens judges
And, let me repost something I wrote in March of last year:
Examples of religious right anti-judge hate speech:
Today, I received this email from the religious right propaganda organ AgapePress:
Judie Brown of the American Life League says the court-ordered starvation of the brain-injured Terri Schiavo is the latest evidence that liberal judges are trying to take on the role of God. "The problem with the court system is that they are moving closer and closer to condemning severely disabled Americans, as a group, to death," she says, "and that ought to frighten everyone."
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., chief sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment:
"Our nation has a set of activist judges in Massachusetts and a rogue mayor in San Francisco. It is evident that they will openly aid and abet the homosexual lobby. These events over the past week clearly show that gay activists will skirt the law to create a new privilege that has never existed in this country."
Republican National Committee:
In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings. "When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,” Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance.
November 13th, 2004
As we’re well aware of, in the past few days and in the months and years to come, the Democratic Party will receive countless bits of solicited and unsolicited advice from: professional political consultants, media pundits, think thanks, pollsters, national advocacy organizations and, believe it or not, from Republicans. As individuals nominally aligned with the Democratic Party, we must make sure that our interests and voices are not drowned out in the fury of advice that’s sure to come the Democratic Party’s way…
With that in mind, I’d like to put forward what I hope is a simple and tangible objective that can be achieved before inauguration: Let’s make sure that OUR elected Democratic representatives know that we are out here, in the cities and towns across America, and that we expect them to STAND FOR SOMETHING — to stand for values of Hope over Fear, for values of Tolerance and Inclusion, and to stand for the promise of the America that has yet to be, but which we know it can become; let’s let them know that capitulation for the apparent sake of conciliation is too high a price to pay if it means compromising the hard-fought for gains in the civil rights arena, consumer protections, rudimentary security for our elderly, the conservation of our natural resources, worker’s rights and a couple’s right to determine their reproductive destiny.
Before laying out the proposal which I hope we can enact together, allow me a few lines to provide a bare bones description of where WE are. First, who are the WE that I speak of? I’ll answer by providing a description of who I see my self as, and by presuming that You share shades of a similar worldview. I, We, embrace inclusion and tolerance, reason and modernity; I, We, know that America works best when our burdens and bounty are shared, and; I, We, understand that at various junctions in our American family’s history, people with our worldview — Liberals, Progressives, Idealists — have had to step forward to assert and affirm our meritorious values, and in the process have made the American family ever more inclusive. As I see it, it is this very thing — our values and ideals — that’s at stake in the wake of the 2004 elections.
The following may seem alarmist and premature, but — when considered against the backdrop of our national politics — I soberly suggest that it is neither. At present, the Democratic Party is flirting with irrelevance and obsolescence as a national institution; because, the Democratic Party has been practically muscled out of all three branches of government and, too, since Republicans already have — and will continue to — amass greater influence amongst the lobbying, regulatory and bureaucratic apparatuses of Washington, DC. Of course, the future of the Democratic Party could be drastically different if two or four years from now the situation in Iraq and our economy are much worst; accordingly, if such were to be the case, as a backlash, the Democratic Party could be swept into power across the nation. However, such catastrophic outcomes in Iraq and for our economy would come at a terrible cost, and may be too high a price for all of us to pay just to see the Republican Party ejected from power. Besides, such dire scenarios are relatively unlikely, and may not necessarily result in a backlash against the Republican Party — why, just look at the evidence of the past four years.
If the preceding is even remotely true, We — the grassroots of the Democratic Party — have some hard decisions to make: 1. We may choose to do nothing and hope for the best, 2. We may choose to abandon the Democratic Party, after deeming it a weak steward of our progressive values, and then decide to join or even create an alternative party, or 3. We can choose to raise our voices now, and demand that our elected Democratic Party representatives fight for our progressive principles and, too, defend the gains we’ve made over the past century. Clearly doing nothing and hoping for the best is unacceptable and unprincipled; then, there’s the second option, which is certainly more principled than the first, though — at present — would represent a tremendous gamble, unless one is willing to let things deteriorate further still; finally, as I hope will happen, We can opt to do something to encourage the national Democratic Party to take a stand on our behalf.
PROPOSAL
The proposal is simple and attainable on or before the Presidential inauguration. Of course, this document only contains a rough outline of the proposal — as the campaign’s details can be worked out in the days ahead for optimal visibility and impact. As you may be aware of, many of our fellow citizens are planning to voice their concerns on the streets of the capital on inauguration day; of course, as was the case after the elections of 2000, their efforts may go largely unmentioned by our media — unless, of course, large scale disorder breaks out. Accordingly, either scenario — the media’s silence or disorder on the streets — jeopardizes the legitimacy of our concerns over and opposition to the policies of the Bush administration and of the Republican Party; consequently, either scenario may further calcify the national Democratic Party’s inefficacy to mount a unified and principled stand. Therefore, we should open up an immediate front that’ll force the media to air the concerns of the Democratic Party’s grassroots, and that’ll call on the national Democratic Party to take a principled stand.
THE GOAL: The goal is to galvanize the grassroots of the Democratic Party, and to call on the national party to take a principled stand for our Progressive Values.
MEANS: The immediate objective is to publish full-page newspapers ads all across America addressing the national Democratic Party — we should plan on starting with the New York Times, before or on inauguration day. Aside from calling on the Democratic Party to take a principled stand, the ads will also urge fellow Democrats to participate in the campaign by publishing similar ads in local and national newspapers and, too, to contact elected Democratic representatives to let them know that the grassroots expects the national party to STAND FOR SOMETHING, and not to capitulate for the apparent sake of national conciliation.
TOOLS: No modern campaign can operate without a Web presence, so the first actionable item ought to be to build a website to accept contributions to publish the first ad in the New York Times, and so that we can communicate with other members of the Democratic Party’s grassroots. Simultaneously, the group will need to craft the message that’s to be published in the ads, compile the talking points of the organization and form a cadre of PR representatives.
POSITIONING: Given our aims and the nature of this endeavor, this "organization" should remain, at every turn, a grassroots body to underscore the legitimacy and authenticity of our efforts.
CONCLUSION
As described in the preceding, now more than ever, We must assert ourselves, raise our voices, and demand that the national Democratic Party represent our interests; or, as many suspect, the Democratic Party risks irrelevance and eventual obsolescence as a national institution. Accordingly, I put forward the following campaign proposal forward with the hopes that more than a few of Us will enact it together:
The campaign laid out above will, hopefully, kick off with a full-page ad in the New York Times to be published on or before inauguration day:
Allow me to thank you for taking the time to contemplate this proposal and, too, I very much look forward to receiving whatever feedback or comments you’d like to provide. More importantly, it’s my sincerest hope that each and everyone of you will collaborate in and contribute to this effort.
ADDEMDUM:
Henry Kissinger on revolutionary powers:
“Lulled by a period of stability which had seemed permanent, they find it nearly impossible to take at face value the assertion of the revolutionary power that it means to smash the existing framework. The defenders of the status quo therefore tend to begin by treating the revolutionary power as if its protestations were merely tactical; as if it really accepted the existing legitimacy but overstated its case for bargaining purposes; as if it were motivated by specific grievances to be assuaged by limited concessions. Those who warn against the danger in time are considered alarmists; those who counsel adaptation are considered balanced and sane… But it is the essence of a revolutionary power that it possesses the courage of its convictions, that it is willing, indeed eager, to push its principles to their ultimate conclusion.”
- Henry Kissinger, as quoted by Paul Krugman in his book, The Great Unraveling
If you’d like to download this doc as a PDF click here and here. If you’d like to email me your thoughts and or plans to put this into action, contact me at: voxmiablog [at] voxmia.com.
