Cum Tacent, Clamant
Casper Star Tribune
"Some Democrats who signed up to hear Vice President Dick Cheney speak [in Rio Rancho, NM] Saturday [July 24th] were refused tickets unless they signed a pledge to endorse President Bush."...
"...the Kerry campaign had not attempted to screen Bush supporters out of Kerry's appearance at the National Hispanic Cultural Center in Albuquerque on July 9."
I believe that speaks more to the difference between these two men than any specific policy disagreement. Political expedience often wars with the ideals of democracy in this country. Some presidents (Clinton) sign into law sweeping increases in the amount to which citizens can monitor their government by making requests of information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Other presidents (Bush) clamp down on FOIA requests, trying to keep the public from learning what is going on inside their government, in the name of protecting the government's responsibility to be effective on behalf of its citizens.
Can you really trust any person who aspires to be the most powerful man on Earth, with the personal command of 10,000 nuclear warheads and the most effective military ever developed, and does so secretively, trying to thwart open discourse and freedom of expression?
Can you really vote for someone who wants that power but is afraid to debate his opponents, afraid to expose his positions to criticism and defend them to the public personally?
posted by REDACTED @ 12:22:00 PM &uArr
1 comments
1 Comments:
I would add to this post(which is well done, good work Rahul!) more evidence and context to further this point. We are a nation founded on the principles of the Western Enlightenment, reason and science. These principles have been proven time and again, yet many Bush supporters dismiss them in favor of emotion and blind faith. While I usually argue for not ignoring our baser emotions, I would also contend we cannot dismiss what is proven fact and a proven method for solving problems. As Bush doesn't call his supporters on their old-fashioned beleifs, his rhetoric as a uniter and president for all the people falls very flat. He simply lets them think that he espouses all of their unreasoned positions, which can only lead the rest of us to think he must hold these same beliefs. A more poignant example of how Democrats differ in this realm I will use the reason I support Howard Dean. Dean was the most misunderstood and mischaracterized candidate I've ever seen. In a primary campaign stop in Iowa, a younger audience member, appeared to be a college age activist type, indicted Dean on his support of free trade. Rather than say that this youngster was wrong on this issue, Dean, in his response, said he respectfully disagreed with this young activist and then explained why free trade benefits everyone, and if economic justice is your issue then you should promote free and fair trade, and the only way to ensure you get that is take a place at the table and discuss it. Could you imagine George Bush explaining to a religious Republican why we can't teach creationism in public schools, and why we should teach evolutionary theory? It used to be Democrats were held up as the nanny party, but it seems the Republicans have every bit the intention of making up our minds for us as they claimed Democrats were ten years ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home