Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: BigWaveBetty
Continuing that theme, Slate has a right-on article about former-Senator Max Cleland and his revered "victim status" in the Democratic Party:
He brings no particular talent to Kerry's campaign. Apart from his status as a brave war veteran, he sends no positive message to the public. As a Vietnam vet who tried and failed to fend off attacks on his national security credentials, he undermines the claim that Kerry's own war record insulates him from similar attacks. What Cleland brings to Kerry's campaign is the emotional power of victimization—a throwback to the worst of old-time Democratic Party politics, to its emphasis on victimhood over ability and virtue. But whereas in the past it was specific interest groups—minorities, women, gays—who were the noble victims, today it is the Democratic Party itself. Cleland is a reminder to fellow Democrats that they have spend the past three years being persecuted and that it's time to start avenging their humiliations.
As they say, read the whole thing. It actually admits the Republicans NEVER QUESTIONED CLELAND'S PATRIOTISM!
36 posted on 04/05/2004 8:07:36 AM PDT by Timeout (Down with Donks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: Timeout
I've got to go run some errands and will read it when I get back. Happy someone is finally pointing out Cleland's real roll in Kerry's campaign and from Slate no less.

After noticing that Cleland was everywhere with Kerry it made me wonder if Kerry would be frantic enough to tap him for VP. He's got to do something to deflect the ugly post Vietnam record.

37 posted on 04/05/2004 8:26:34 AM PDT by BigWaveBetty (Have you forgotten - - How we felt that day?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Timeout
re: Max Cleland. I did read the whole Slate article. It was scathing about Cleland and Kerry. The last line of the article was that revenge is not a good platform for running a Presidential campaing. Kerry isn't listening though (thank goodness.)
57 posted on 04/05/2004 6:33:15 PM PDT by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Timeout
Golly, there it is in bold and white.

The ad, though sleazy in its use of Osama and Saddam, didn't question Cleland's patriotism. It questioned his political courage and judgment. It focused narrowly on his behavior in office and his actual votes against the Homeland Security Department. With images of Bin Laden and Saddam flashing onscreen, a narrator declared that, "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead." The ad then listed Cleland's votes against the Homeland Security Department and said he was stalling "the president's vital homeland security efforts." It concluded: "Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead, but the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading."

Chambliss' criticism was based on Cleland's actual votes. The fact that Cleland volunteered for Vietnam and Chambliss avoided it means something, but it certainly doesn't mean that Cleland should be immune from all attacks on his Senate voting record.

And Cleland should remember his good friend's words, from 1992 that we shouldn’t divide the country by getting into people’s Vietnam era service and reopening those old national wounds.

65 posted on 04/05/2004 9:41:03 PM PDT by BigWaveBetty (Have you forgotten - - How we felt that day?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson