Comment Says More About Reid Than Bush (political name-calling)

http://www.therealitycheck.org ^ | 5/9/05 | Doug Patton

[bitt]

Much has been made recently about the decline of civility in today’s political discourse. The lament is heard from liberal Democrats, moderate Republicans and the national news media, all of which seem to believe that there is ample blame on both sides of the political aisle.

The truth, for anyone willing to see it, is that incivility in Washington is hardly a two-way street. Yes, there are always individuals on both sides willing to engage in rhetorical assassination of their political enemies. On the left, Michael Moore, Al Franken and other Hollywood liberals have joined forces with George Soros, MoveOn.org and the rest of the 527 crowd in attacking George W. Bush. On the right, a few talk radio conservatives and a million obscure bloggers have retaliated with name-calling when talking about the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the ever-despised Hillary Clinton.

However, when it comes to name-calling by elected officials, conservative Republicans are not even in the same league with their Democrat colleagues on the left. Think of the outrageous statements made by Democrats in the last twenty years. Ted Kennedy’s 1987 speech against “Robert Bork’s America” is a modern classic:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution.”

Two years ago, Kennedy accused President Bush of concocting the war in Iraq for political gain. Last year, referring to what amounted to hazing of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, he said that Saddam’s torture chambers had “reopened under new management — U.S. management.”

This irresponsible nonsense came from the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts, a man who has served in that body for 43 years.

More recently, John Kerry referred to the Bush Administration as “the crookedest bunch” he had ever seen. This from the junior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts who, at the time he said it, was the Democrats’ nominee for the highest office in the land.

While running for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination himself, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (now chairman of the Democratic National Committee) advanced the theory that President George W. Bush knew about the September 11, 2001, attacks ahead of time and did nothing to stop it.

Following the historic 1994 congressional elections, which gave Republicans control of both the House and the Senate for the first time in forty years, the senior Democrat on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York, equated GOP tax relief proposals with racism.

“They used to say ‘nigger’ and ‘spic,’” Rangel, who is black, said at the time. “Now they just say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.’”

Of course, no one but the most paranoid leftist pays much attention to any of this demagoguery, but it does prove the theory that if you tell a lie often enough, someone may just start to believe it. This may explain why elected Democrats are engaged in some of the most outrageous, over-the-top political rhetoric we have heard in a generation.

All of which brings us to the latest example of how childish the Dems have become in their political discourse. While President Bush is traveling in Europe, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, speaking to a group of Las Vegas high school students, said of the president: “The man's father is a wonderful human being, but I think this guy is a loser.”

Apparently realizing the inappropriate nature of the comments, most news media outlets were quick to point out that Reid immediately phoned the White House and asked Bush advisor Karl Rove to convey his apologies to the president. Such an apology is tantamount to the courtroom antics of an attorney who, while he knows his outrageous comments will be ruled prejudicial to a jury’s deliberations, also knows that once spoken, such comments cannot be disregarded.

Reid offered an inarticulate opinion of the leader of the free world in a clumsy attempt to marginalize him before a crowd of high school students. Such a childish comment says much more about the senator than it does about the president.

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist and political speechwriter who has worked for conservative candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations at the federal, state and local levels. His weekly column can be read in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites. Readers can e-mail him at dpatton@neonramp.com

[Brilliant]

It doesn't say anything about Bush.

[Piquaboy]

People with little intelligence have to resort to name calling since they don't have the brain power to do anything else.

[cripplecreek]

Something that has been irritating me about the democrats.

Reid, Byrd and a few other give this little speech about how poor they were growing up. They say they didn't have electricity or indoor plumbing or toilets. My problem is the fact that they know full well that a large segment of the population was without electricity or used outhouses when they were born.

It just displays how they use half truths and deception to portray themselves as "men of the people".

[appeal2]

Dingy Harry is truly a small man.

[yoe]

Harry Reid just lowered his office and that as a "states man" to 0. For this leader of the Democratic House to call the President of the United States a loser to high school students is just lower than low. It shows the disrespect, he Reid, holds for his country and what a bitter, illiterate, little man Harry Reid really is.

He owes an apology to those students, they don’t deserve such an impoverished representative of their government.

[paul_fromatlanta]

It mainly speaks to a trend in politics where we are attacking the person rather than the policies. In addition to being the leader of the free world, President Bush is a nice guy but too many Americans think it's makes sense to denigrate him personally - very sad. Of course it happens on both sides and is sad either way.

[IamConservative]

This irresponsible nonsense came from the senior United States Senator from Massachusetts, a man who has served in that body for 43 years.

Intersting turn of the phrase to describe Kennedy's service. Can't tell if he is talking about the round mound of profound or the US Senate.

[Balding_Eagle]

Of course it happens on both sides and is sad either way.

It doesn't happen on both sides, oh foolish newbie. It only happens on the liberal side. Don't make unsupported accusations like that, that kind of trash talk needs supporting examples.

Btw, welcome to FR!

[paul_fromatlanta]

>>
It doesn't happen on both sides, oh foolish newbie. It only happens on the liberal side. Don't make unsupported accusations like that, that kind of trash talk needs supporting examples.

Btw, welcome to FR!<<

Thank you for the welcome.

I'd give you some supporting examples if I could tell whether or not you were serious. But I'm new here and still learning.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Reid's apology was just as disingenuous as his original statement was obscene.

The little snot said the called Carl Rove because President Bush was "probably asleep" without making reference to a time difference.

I am really beginning to despise this man.

[paul_fromatlanta]

>>Reid's apology was just as disingenuous as his original statement was obscene.

The little snot said the called Carl Rove because President Bush was "probably asleep" without making reference to a time difference.

I am really beginning to despise this man.<<

I hope my post above was not interpreted as a defense of Reid - I think what he did was terrible and his apology sounded dishonest.

My only point was that he and his party don't have monopoly on the politics of personal attacks and that it is wrong no matter who does it.

[Christian4Bush]

bttt

[Balding_Eagle]

I am serious. Yes, you can find some examples of personal attacks on libs by conservatives. In the technical sense you are right, both sides do do it. We just have to go back to the Clinton era to see that.

HOWEVER, you will be hard pressed to find any attacks by high-profile conservatives, and none, repeat, none, of the type Dusty Harry used.

How do I know? Because the attack would be plastered all over the front pages of the LSM (lame stream media) for weeks. The person responsible for it would be forced to apologize on every Sunday morning show, he would be berated by the likes of Dusty Harry, his staff and a myriad of assorted other Senators and Representatives. Press conferences would be held 3 times per day for a week excoriating him for his meanspiritedness. The congressman's staff would undergo intense scrutiny, and at least one would be fired. He would be forced, through political pressure, to resign from various panels and committees.

THEN, he would be called cold hearted, cruel, and unresponsive to criticism.

Trent Lott is a good example, of what happens if a Republican makes a mistake. And he didn't say anything that even approaches the level of Dusty harry's outburst, nor is he a conservative. Either one of the those conditions (conservative, or a real attack) would have resulted in a true Nuclear Option being excercised by the Libs.

[af_vet_1981]

Reid's apology was just as disingenuous as his original statement was obscene. The little snot said the called Carl Rove because President Bush was "probably asleep" without making reference to a time difference.

I despise what Traitor Reid said but it is harder to defend the President when his own wife tries to make him out to be stupid.

[daybreakcoming]

***Of course it happens on both sides and is sad either way***

Can you please tell me your sources on the Republican side? I can't imagine where you get your news.

[paul_fromatlanta]

>>I am serious. Yes, you can find some examples of personal attacks on libs by conservatives. In the technical sense you are right, both sides do do it. We just have to go back to the Clinton era to see that.

HOWEVER, you will be hard pressed to find any attacks by high-profile conservatives, and none, repeat, none, of the type Dusty Harry used.<<

I'll take a look. I would think the most likely subjects would be Hillary, Kerry and Michael Moore. It is an interesting distinction you make - I was thinking more about message boards and blogs - you may turn out to be right about high profile Republicans.


>>Trent Lott is a good example, of what happens if a Republican makes a mistake. And he didn't say anything that even approaches the level of Dusty harry's outburst, nor is he a conservative. <<

I know I'm new here ..so I hesitate to even say this but one of the things that bothered me here in my very brief time have been the attacks on Republicans - like Trent Lott, John McCain and Bush41. That's one reason i didn't specifically reference Democrats in my post - I don't like personal attacks from any quarter, call me old fashioned but I prefer to debate issues.

[paul_fromatlanta]

Didn't Ann Coulter call Hillary "pond scum?" and didn't President Bush43 call Michael Moore a "slimeball?

But I stand corrected on the basic point that more high profile Democrats have called Republicans names since Bush43 was elected since I did a quick search and did not find anything.

I read a lot online it's there I see so many attacks from both sides, including attacks from both flanks on people who are partisan enough.

[bitt]

Ann Coulter calling Hillary names is QUITE different than say, Senator Frist calling Kerry "a vulgar, lying idiot".

Or Zell Miller calling Ted Kennedy names. As in, "I liked his brother, but I think Ted Kennedy is a big fat stupid blowhard". heh-heh.

[cwb]

You are wrong...and let me give you an example. During Clinton's impeachment-eve bombing of Iraq, Tom Delay actually had the nerve to call into question Clinton's timing of this operation. This was something that was on a lot of Republicans mind....not to mention some in the media, since the bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan. Yet, through the months, not one Republican came out publically to redicule Clinton for his Wag-the-Dog.

Yet Delay's comments, which strictly went to the timing of this operation, and included no personal attacks, became the subject of much media attention. In fact, unlike the media that buries denegrating quotes from Democrats, this media went around asking for comments from other Republicans so they could pin them down and tie them to Delay's comments.
As usual, Republicans became Delay's toughest critics for these comments.

There is only one other Republican I can think of who made disparaging and "personal" comments about Clinton...and that was Dan Burton. And unlike Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, etc.; Burton paid for those comments for weeks as he was taken apart in the media. The media ignores Democrats, while Republicans are rediculed and marginalized as extremists.


I'm sorry, but it's not even the same thing. Sure...the pundits and the talking-heads all do this; but when it comes to elected politicians, the Democrats are on a level alone. And the reason why (as someone already pointed out) is because the media would never allow a Republican to get away with it. Just look at the way they treated Trent Lott's praise of Thurmond vs. Chris Dodd's praise of Robert Byrd; two very similar situations that were treated completely differently.