I'm not a fan of Glenn Reynolds. I find it hard to believe he's a lawyer, much less a professor of law. His entire blog consists primarily of the construction of strawman arguments that he can tear apart, and it's hard to believe that he would ever survive in a courtroom.
He lives in a bubble of misconceptions.
But periodically I read instapundit when I'm bored, and I find something to be outraged about. Today I responded, for it's time to start popping the bubble of preconceived notions and strawman arguments.
Yesterday he posted a
link to a story by Michael Barone.
In the debates, John Kerry recalled that Bush campaigned in 2000 as a unifier, not a divider, and criticized him for dividing the nation as president. Yet the harshest rhetoric of this long, long campaign season has come not from Bush and the Republicans but from Kerry and the Democrats. Democrats have called Bush and Dick Cheney unpatriotic, not the other way around; Democrats have charged that Bush was " AWOL" in the Texas Air National Guard; Democrats have claimed that Bush "lied" about Iraq. The Democrats are the opposition party and as such can be expected to attack the incumbent. But they are not conducting a campaign that will make it easy for them to unify the country if they win.
And then Glenn went on to agree with the statement.
I agree, and think that if Kerry should be elected he will find it very difficult to govern effectively.
So this was my response, which I emailed Glenn... (with some small edits to add additional points, whatever, glenn won't read it anyway)
So you don't think 'Unfit for Command' by the Swift Boat vets was harsh? The accusations that Kerry didn't serve in Vietnam with honor? Those aren't harsh? Bush wandering lost in the desert claiming Kerry will weaken America, that he will spend us into a deficit. That he doesn't understand the connection between jobs and education? These aren't bizarre accusations? No? Dick Cheney claiming if you elect John Kerry we'll be attacked? Not harsh? Not bizarre?
You don't think any number of statements that I could pull up from Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and other Republican pundits was harsh? What was the title of Coulter's book, again? I believe it used the word Treason. That's not harsh? We're just all Treasonous Bastards, right? But you mean it in the most kind spirit of bipartisanship, I'm sure. Sure Michael Moore comes out with Fahrenheit 9/11, but what is the Republican response? Oh yeah... "Why does Michael Moore Hate America?"
I have to believe you're living in a little bubble, Glenn, and simply aren't aware of the great big world out there.
And yet you obviously haven't figured out 2004 and what this means for politics. You're still playing the game from 2000, and you've shown up to a gun fight carrying a knife.
You see for years and years the Democrats listened to criticism such as yours, and they said to their friends "Calm down, you go to far, you shouldn't say that." and the Republicans saw this not as a sessation of hostilities, but as a capitulation and their response was even harsher than before. Capitulation shows weakness, and since the Republican party now treats Democrats as enemies rather than opponents, we're digging our trenches and fighting back.
The unity that followed 9/11 was shattered by Republicans in the 2002 election cycle, when they started smear campaigns... claiming Cleland was friends with Osama bin Laden, that Paul Wellstone was a Communist and an Extremist, etc. This was followed up by the prelude to the Iraq war, where dissenters were called unpatriotic, where it was declared that they Hated Freedom, and especially America. All many of us were concerned about was the long term consquences, the costs in lives and treasure, and what could possibly be gained. We didn't belive the arguments that it'd be a cakewalk where we were greeted by sweets and flowers. Republicans weren't interested in doing what's best for the Nation, that is good sound public policy. No, they wanted power for power's sake.
No, Glenn, Democrats aren't going to listen to your shrill screed this time around, not as we watch American values shattered and abandoned. It's gone too far, we've had enough.
What we have learned is not to shun partisanship, not to shun heated debate, rather we now embrace it.
You want to claim we Hate America, then fine, you do that. And we'll point you out for what you are... A Moral Coward who is unwilling to debate the central issues and instead builds strawman arguments to tear down.
And if you don't like that... then it's time that your side stand down, and start calling your pundits and telling them "you can't say that, you've gone too far."
Then maybe we'll listen to you.
Why do you Hate America, Glenn?