Wednesday, December 3, 2008

The Smear That Didn't Work

James Taranto on the Sen. Saxby Chambliss run-off win in Sourth Carolina

Chambliss beat Vietnam veteran and amputee Max Cleland in 2002. Ever since, Democrats have been claiming Chambliss questioned Cleland's "patriotism" during the campaign. He didn't. He questioned his judgement in not standing up to his fellow Democrats on unionizing our Homeland Security force.

For years Democrats and other liberals have been smearing Chambliss for his alleged (and completely invented) smearing of Cleland.

As someone who has actually been accused of being "unpatriotic" not too long ago by a reader for not being sufficiently sweet to the President Elect, it's hard to take such aspersions seriously.

Why Democrats bother to make them up is beyond me.

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

From 2002:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-11-06-chambliss_x.htm

"Chambliss even ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. "

That's not "questioning Cleland's judgment". That's attacking his patriotism, and it shows what a disgrace Chambliss is. No wonder he called in Palin to campaign for him. She likes associating patriotic Americans with terrorists too.

December 3, 2008 at 7:40 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Wrong again.

Chambliss and others argued at the time that unionizing workers for the Department of Homeland Security would make the department less agile and efficient in fighting the war against terror.

Agree or disagree that is not questioning someone's "patriotism" that is questioning their judgment on how best to fight it terrorism.

Democrats, typically, doth protest too much.

December 4, 2008 at 7:48 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Putting Cleland's picture next to Bin Laden's was most definitely an attack on his patriotism. The message was clearly that Cleland supported terrorists.

The Bush administration has consistently and disingenuously used the threat of terrorism to push through anti-civil rights legislation and rules they'd been trying to implement prior to 9/11.

December 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, spencerblog. if you think people wouldn't draw an unpatriotic conclusion, why don't you ask the delco times to replace your stock photo with a split-screen photo of you and bin laden for a month, and see what conclusion the readers draw.

don't forget to label the pictures so people can tell you apart. :-)

December 4, 2008 at 3:57 PM 
Anonymous r said...

Blind partisan Dishonest Dave is just upset because his thugs won't be getting their 60 supermajority.

The fact that the Dems and Obama were pushing so hard for it kinda undermines their whole "bipartisan unity" lie, dontcha think?

December 4, 2008 at 5:05 PM 
Blogger steve mcdonald said...

didn't michael moore do a documentary picturing the Bush family in connections with the bin Ladens?

December 5, 2008 at 8:50 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 60 vote super majority is just hype, because there is no guarantee that all the Dems would vote together nor that some of the GOP would support some of the filibusters proposed. There are a few GOP that would vote with the Dems to stop a filibuster.

The Dems will be controlling the committees and what votes get to the floor. They are in a great position to cut a deal with a few persuadable Republicans. Besides, even John McCain promised to work with the Obama and the Dems. He's a likely guy to vote against a filibuster.

December 5, 2008 at 11:15 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Yeah, because Repubs are much less blindly lockstep partisan than LibDems.

December 5, 2008 at 6:52 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home