Today on Blogcritics
Home » Dishonest hateful Democratic convention

Dishonest hateful Democratic convention

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In 1984, they roused the rabble by having a Two Minute Hate. The Democrats just finished up a Four Day Hate.

Thinking back over as much of this week’s Democratic national convention as I could stand to watch, I’m struck by a lingering taste of empty hatefulness and dishonesty. Please don’t take this as any kind of nod to Republicans, but the Democrats this week put on the most distasteful show I’ve ever seen for a major party national convention.

There was not even the start of any real idea of a program being put forward- good, bad or indifferent. They didn’t present any plan. What, in particular, is President John Kerry going to do in Iraq? He’s going to get our allies on board. How – with his stunning charisma and quick wit? And just what special magic is it he thinks Chirac is going to do to make things work?

Christopher Hitchens, Rand bless his pinko heart, does the most precise dissection of the weaselness of Kerry’s speech, and perhaps THE most egregious part (built up in advance) in which Kerry talked about “opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America.”

This particularly galls me coming from this righteous rich liberal. If some cracker from Franklin County, Indiana were talking like that, complaining about sending all our money to them there fureners overseas, they would be (to some extent rightly) condemned as ignorant racists. As if whatever 1/2 of 1% of our budget in the next couple of years goes to Iraqi rebuilding is the cause of our problems.

Begrudging the Iraqis a little money to start re-constructing their country after we tore it up twice in a dozen years seems particularly hypocritical and weak coming from many of the same people who complained for all those dozen years in between about how economic sanctions were killing Iraqis. Lining up firemen to pan the cameras to in support of this cheap demagoguery reflected pretty badly on them as well.

Kerry was also particularly egregiously dishonest when he carried on with the nonsense about how terrible it was that US families were doing bake sales to raise money for body armor after he and Edwards famously voted against the $87 billion dollars, way most of which was just exactly money for our troops.

Damn John Kerry most of all for putting me in the position of even halfway defending the Republicans. Nonetheless, Bush would not be trying to put across whoppers like this. Honest or not, he knows he’d never be allowed to get away with anything like the dishonest and deceitful talk from these Democrats.

The only thing cohesing the group at this convention was their pure, unadulterated hatred for President Bush. Again, I’m surely not the president of the President Bush Fan Club, but absolutely nobody gives a rat’s ass for John Kerry. Depending on how you count them, probably fully half of the big applause lines were some kind of bitter personal attacks on the president or vice president. Pat Buchanan at his most hostile convention performances had nothing on these speakers – except that he was a better speech writer and speaker.

Perhaps the most maliciously dishonest example came from the real spiritual leader of the Democrats, Ted Kennedy, “The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush.”

The dishonest part mostly comes from their not very successful attempt at hiding this hate mob mentality. All week, one speaker after another was cut and trimmed severely by Kerry’s people so as not to look like some fascist hate rally on tv. Howard Dean and Al Gore were particularly neutered.

Yet all that hate couldn’t help coming through. Even Barack Obama, the new anointed rising rock star with the positive message of empty platitudes had to get in that nasty and dishonest dig about votes being counted “most of the time.”

The hate came through, though; it was simply gray in the presentation. They carefully throttled it down. Dean turned off the famous ranting, at least in front of the television cameras on the convention floor.

Kerry himself made some of the worst slanders, except that he did it mostly in slimy backhanded ways. He insisted on talking about how he would never “mislead the country into war.” This despite Bush being exonerated of these baseless charges of lying by the British inquiry and our 9/11 commission. The truth value of his statements obviously matters not to him.

It wouldn’t have been quite so bad if they had just unzipped themselves and had an open hatefest. Watching the veins on Dean’s neck bulge would have been honest and invigorating. Kerry directly pounding the lectern and calling Bush a liar would have been at least straightforward, open to being answered.

Instead, they kind of half-implied ugly stuff half under their breath. They tried to have their hate, but not look like they’re foaming at the mouth. They were foaming at the mouth under their breath.

Yuck.

Powered by

About Gadfly

  • http://www.rodneywelch.blogspot.com/http://www.rodneywelch.blogspot.com/http://www.rodneywelch.blogspot.com/http://www.rodneywelch.blogspot.com/http://www.rodneywelch.blogspot.com/http://www.rodneywel Rodney Welch

    Al, [edited] You are a perfect example of how the partisan divide in this country lowers the level of discourse. You’re not alone, of course — I see it everyday in the opinion pages of WSJ — this tendency to believe that virtually any disagreement, any negative assessment, amounts to “hate.”

  • http://www.foliage.com/~marks Mark Saleski

    very senatorial of you, mr. barger.

  • http://www.vacuity.de Michelle

    >> What, in particular, is President John Kerry going to do in Iraq?

    i do not think he’s gonna do anything, and he’s not gonna improve things there anyway. how can he when the guy that waged his war there before messed up so badly anyway? but i also see no difference between Bush and Kerry concerning this war.

    but maybe Kerry can do more for the US within his own country at least. Bush sure can’t, as he has proven already throughout the past four years, so why vote for Bush? at least it can’t get worse anymore with Kerry.

  • boomcrashbaby

    i also see no difference between Bush and Kerry concerning this war.

    Wow, Michelle, really? Are there a lot of people with that viewpoint? The candidates views of the war on terror are so radically different. Kerry believes in a global, united front in the war on terror, whereas Bush is going for isolationism and a strategy where in the long run, we might be physically safe, but the ramifications of the economic/political/foreign policy/civil liberty fallout he’s creating are going to make it a phyrric victory.

  • http://www.vacuity.de Michelle

    >> Bush is going for isolationism

    Bush is not really going for isolation. he just had to deal with it when he wanted to get his point through and many diagreed with him. i bet he’d be more than happy to join the world against his terror.

    Kerry dreams of a union against terror maybe, but if other countries just do not agree with this war on terror as a whole and ask for different solutions, then Kerry’s just gonna end up the way Bush did.

    it is about time to question why all this terror happens and then start working on it from the roots. no war will defeat it, i think. as long as Kerry is talking about “war on terror” he is simply on the wrong track to the solution.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Other countries have been dealing with terrorism for centuries.

    Bush should have worked with them in fighting it, rather than “turning the corner” and heading off in the wrong direction by invading Iraq. That’s what other countries disagree with.

    if other countries just do not agree with this war on terror as a whole and ask for different solutions

  • HW Saxton Jr.

    “They were foaming at the mouth,under
    their breath”. That’s a Great line Al.
    It has a very Bierce-like ring to it.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    I checked out the Hitchens item and don’t understand it:

    And then on Thursday night, Sen. Kerry quite needlessly proposed a contradiction between “opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them in the United States of America.” Talk about a false alternative.

    He implies that Kerry’s statement was wrong, but it was right: Firehouses are being opened in Bhagdad and are being shut in the U.S. because of a lack of funds locally.

    So your point (and his) is what exactly?

    Personally, I’d rather see OUR first-responders funded.

    Especially with today’s new terror alert on the East Coast.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Really, Rod-

    Al, you’re more hateful than any Democrat who appeared last week. Everything you say oozes venom — and stop kidding yourself, it’s deeply Republican venom. You are a perfect example of how the partisan divide in this country lowers the level of discourse. You’re not alone, of course — I see it everyday in the opinion pages of WSJ — this tendency to believe that virtually any disagreement, any negative assessment, amounts to “hate.”
    **************************

    You seem to be just blinded by your own partisanship there, Rod. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for Bush. I’m not going to vote for Bush. I’ve cussed him up one side and down the other.

    Between them, I really don’t have a dog in this fight. Indeed, if my guy Badnarik got credit for being this year’s Nader, I’d be quite happy to see Bush beat. The most I could say between them is that I probably don’t find Bush quite as personally distasteful as Kerry.

    Nor am I hateful. I think Kerry’s a turdball, but I don’t have any particular personal emotional investment in it. He’s way too bland to hate even if I were so inclined.

    None of these people make my blood boil. They’d hardly be worth the effort. It’d be like getting really angry over the misbehavior of ill bred children. They’re distasteful and a nuisance. Oh, feel my hate.

    Nor am I lowering the discourse – that would be more like when you carry on about me without any basis other than just saying so. I, on the other hand, am lifting the discourse with careful and specific analysis. I’m giving specific examples of what exactly I’m objecting to in the content of what they actually said, and giving them in a fairly mildly stated way.

    Ted Kennedy really was oozing venom, and saying obviously demagogic nonsense. The only thing we have to fear is W? Really, W is the threat, not Muslim fanatics?

    I suspect that you just can’t stand criticism, Rod. My statements were not partisan, nor overblown, but a carefully observed analysis of what was on the screen. You’re apparently going to take ANY significant criticism of your side as “hate.”

    Perhaps you take my criticisms as hate because you simply don’t know of any other way to disagree than hating. The national Democrats in Boston this week sure didn’t.

  • http://www.resonation.ca Jim Carruthers

    Al, why get so worked up over what is essentially an infomercial? With another one coming down the line.

    You’re trying to compare your ab-master, and complaining that buying it and the George Foreman grill has done nothing about your gut. But all you’ve done is read the bumf on the the box.

    Since when did speeches mean anything? It’s not like anybody is accepting accountability or anything. It is only the equivalent of a corporate annual report (and if you believe anything printed in those, I have some stock you might be interested in).

  • A. Scribe

    Mr. Barger, you may not be a Republican, but you seem to have adopted their newfound fondness for the word “hate.”

    It’s a mildly clever bit of word association they’re promoting, rhetorically linking Dems and other people opposed to Bush or his policies with the terrorists, who can so reliably provoke the public’s visceral scorn.

    As we’ve been told ad nauseum, they (terrorists) commit their heinous acts because “they hate freedom.”

    Since we all know Bush equals freedom, it must follow that those who “hate” Bush, hate freedom.

    And so it is that the Bushies would have you not believe your lying eyes, and instead believe that a convention in which speaker after speaker (in admittedly abbreviated detail) objected to Bush’s economic policies, his prosecution of the war in Iraq, his hostility to science, et cetera, et cetera, was nothing more than a glorified hate rally.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    LOL! If a true advocate of hate, say, David Yeagley, had spoken at the Democratic Convention, we would be reading praise of what he said from this source. The projection of hate onto the democratic (yes, small ‘d’) party by the extreme Right has a lot more to do with psychology than accuracy. Wanting a better country for all the people in it is not a hateful goal. Anyone who thinks it is needs to spend less time on the campaign trail and more on the couch.

  • Shark

    I’m with Al.

    Let’s stop the dancing around and just unleash the hate.

    (Note: It’s a crime to threaten the life of the President of the U.S.)

  • Shark

    Kudos to A. Scribe (comment 11) for recognizing the stealthspeak re. the “hate” vs “terrorist” association.

    Big Al: “Why do they hate us?”

    Us: “Because we’re liberal terrorists.”

    (Double-plus good post, tho!)

  • http://halfbakered.blogspot.com mike hollihan

    Hal wrote: He implies that Kerry’s statement was wrong, but it was right: Firehouses are being opened in Bhagdad and are being shut in the U.S. because of a lack of funds locally.

    That’s a false construction, though. One is not related to the other. Local police and fire are the responsibility of cities or counties (depending on where you live), not the Federal government. Available tax monies (local, state and federal) aren’t a limited pie where taking more in one slice decreases the other slices. Unfortunately!

    Putin announced just two weeks ago that Russia was going to send 30,000 or 40,000 troops to Iraq. Score a point for Bush!

    Also, Kerry announced on the Sunday talk shows that he would “substantially” reduce our troop strength by the end of 2005! I’m sure that the radicals, insurgents and terrorists in Iraq are preparing to dig in and wait it out now.

    Kerry’s foreign policy against terrorism seems to be “pull back, then placate the Europeans.” Al Qaida will see this as proof that they can be effective against us and press on. As Napoleon said, “The ultimate end of a defensive strategy is surrender.”

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    [edited] I was taught that matters of public health are of federal concern. That could explain why we have a federal Centers for Disease Control and most cities and states rely significantly on federal block grants and matching funds to support their health and prevention programs. I will guess that Sen. Kerry was referring to reductions in such funds in the remarks that are being mangled here.

    And frankly, what you are suggesting sure sounds like a virtual colonization of Iraq. But, you would not be encouraging imperialism, would you?

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    No, Mike, they are related: the Department of Homeland Security is still sitting on the funding for first-responders, while money is being released in Baghdad.

    This adminstration talks a good game, but sucks on security.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    You can set up your own straw men like “Kerry’s foreign policy against terrorism seems to be”, but that not what his policy is.

    His troop pullback is a replacement of American troops as others are brought in and as the Iraq forces (police and army) are built up.

    And as he said last Thursday, he will be increasing the size of the military.

  • Shark

    Shameless plug warning:

    Just wait’ll you see what the GOP Convention has up its sleeve…

  • Jimbo2K4

    Al,

    Have you ever seen a friggin convention before? (Where did you see it anyway, with the three or four hours the networks devoted to it…?)

    Hell yes they are focused on defeating the other parties candidate. They’re supposed to be nice about it? What are you, nuts?

    Besides so many of your facts just being flat out wrong, this is one of the stupidest articles yet on the DNC.

  • Jimbo2K4

    “You seem to be just blinded by your own partisanship there, Rod. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for Bush. I’m not going to vote for Bush. I’ve cussed him up one side and down the other.”

    I do not believe a word of this. Your article is crammed with Republican talking points and conservative BS.

    “Kerry himself made some of the worst slanders, except that he did it mostly in slimy backhanded ways. He insisted on talking about how he would never “mislead the country into war.” This despite Bush being exonerated of these baseless charges of lying by the British inquiry and our 9/11 commission. The truth value of his statements obviously matters not to him.”

    You really believe we were not mislead into war? The British inquiry and our 9/11 commission gingerly sidestepped the issue. They did not exonerate this lying administration of anything. Just more BS talking points.

    Al, spare us the “I am not voting for Bush” crap. From what you write, you sure as hell are campaigning for him.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    No, Mike, Russia denies that it’s going to send troops to Iraq:

    Russia Restates Iraqi Troop Refusal

    MOSCOW – Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said on Saturday that Baghdad would like to have Russian peacekeepers, but the Kremlin restated its refusal to become involved in the messy conflict.

    But Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow had no intention of becoming involved.

    Throughout this week, Russian diplomats were busy dismissing recent speculation that Russia would contribute troops in exchange for U.S. assurances that Russian companies could regain lost ground in Iraq.

    Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko said this week that Russia continues to believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that no possible incentives could persuade the Kremlin to send soldiers to Iraq. [Philly.com 7/25/2004]

  • http://dirtgrain.com/weblog Dirtgrain

    “Available tax monies (local, state and federal) aren’t a limited pie where taking more in one slice decreases the other slices. Unfortunately!”
    That pretty much explains Bush’s deficits.