Skip to main content

View Diary: Donna Brazille hits it OUT OF THE PARK (222 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OK (none)
    politically risky because they can refute that by pointing to several ANC attacks that killed a number of civilians.  So my point is to avoid the nuanced debate about whether the ANC was justified in their reactions to apartheid

    We are pussies (excuse my french) if we can't both anticipate and clobber this argument that the ANC is a terrorist organization.

    •  asdf (none)
      There is nothing pussy in framing the debate the way we want to, this is how the republicans have operated for years and it was Clinton's main strength.  But you have to anticipate and choose your battles.  To me, Cheney's record on South Africa should be simplified to one theme, he supported an apartheid regime, he stood in the way of an ultimately successful campaign to topple a racist and despicable government.  Why get bogged down in what he said about the ANC which did its share of (highly justifiable) dirty work that can be thrown back at us to redefine the debate.
      •  Straw Man (none)
        Why get bogged down in what he said about the ANC which did its share of (highly justifiable) dirty work that can be thrown back at us to redefine the debate.

        I'm not getting bogged down in it, you are.  My point was that this was a good vehicle to discredit Cheney in the "war on terrorism." You disagree.

        To me, if you say "Nelson Mandella" the Sheeple think "good."  To say "against Mandella" they think "bad."

        You chose to make this nuanced counterargument that I believe to be a straw man who's ass we should be ashamed of ourselves if we can't kick.

        Sounds like its on this last point that we part company.

        •  1234 (none)
          If I can get you bogged down into it, how can the republicans not?  You will talk about Mandela, and they will say that Cheney never called Mandela a terrorist, he called the ANC a terrorist organization and here is what the ANC was doing in the 1980s when Mandela had been in prison for 20 years and no longer controlled the group.  Do you really want to frame the debate in such a way that you have to defend the bombings of civilians by the ANC in the 1980s?  
          •  And . . (none)
            If you think that Chris Matthews et al. would ever let the discussion devolve that far into facts you haven't watched cable news lately, which is exactly where this sort of sound byting ought to take place.

            By the way, when you say "if I can get bogged down in it how can the republicans not" you sell yourself waaaaaaay short.  These are republicans we are talking about.  History and facts aren't their forte.

            •  final thoughts (none)
              Well I appreciate the compliment.  Thanks, by the way, for the spirited debate.  At the end of the day we see eye to eye on the big picture I think, but I appreciate the opportunity to be challenged in a mature and civil fashion.  But the dems have to get their act together and fight fire with fire, I want to see every democratic sympathesizer, strategist and surrogate end in any discussion about any Bush policy or election issue with these words, "Americans want and need one, united America and I don't think (re)electing a vice president who defended a segregationist regime furthers that goal"
      •  Cheney (none)
        Right.  Cheney was an obstacle to the peaceful resolution of the apartheid travesty.  (As was Reagan, Thatcher and god knows who else ...)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site