Stifling Discourse
Remember the newspaper in Crawford, Texas endorsing Kerry a few weeks ago? Republican bully boys just can't let that stand...
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that people who support a candidate whose party policies include signing loyalty oaths, removing from sight (by force if necessary) anyone who might protest, and leadership that views a t-shirt reading "Protect Our Civil Liberties" as a threat would stoop to harrassment and threats over a newspaper editorial. And yet, I know seemingly decent people who are Bush supporters. They seem decent, thoughtful, Bill of Rights-supporting, even if we disagree on how and who should do the day-to-day running of the country, they don't seem to be the kind of people who would support thuggery. I oppose the brutish, undemocratic tactics of that candidate's supporters. Putting aside the relative merits of each individual candidate, I cannot understand or tolerate the tactics being used to bring Bush a win. I find it chilling that so many seem to turn a blind eye to the culture of suppression and hostility embraced by their side.
In the past, when individuals disagreed with an editorial, they would write a letter to the editor politely expressing a different point of view in contrast to the views of the publishers, which we have usually published...The new mode of operation, I am told, is that when a newspaper prints an editorial of which some sectors might disagree, the focus is now upon how to run the newspaper out of business. Out the window are the contributions the newspaper has made to the community in the past and the newspaper’s extensive investment in the community.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that people who support a candidate whose party policies include signing loyalty oaths, removing from sight (by force if necessary) anyone who might protest, and leadership that views a t-shirt reading "Protect Our Civil Liberties" as a threat would stoop to harrassment and threats over a newspaper editorial. And yet, I know seemingly decent people who are Bush supporters. They seem decent, thoughtful, Bill of Rights-supporting, even if we disagree on how and who should do the day-to-day running of the country, they don't seem to be the kind of people who would support thuggery. I oppose the brutish, undemocratic tactics of that candidate's supporters. Putting aside the relative merits of each individual candidate, I cannot understand or tolerate the tactics being used to bring Bush a win. I find it chilling that so many seem to turn a blind eye to the culture of suppression and hostility embraced by their side.
How an anybody support Bush? Because he and his minions are good at using the media to manipulate reality and distort his stands on the issues. Check out this recent report.56% of Bush supporters say that "most experts believe that we found WMD in Iraq!" Another 18% believe that "experts are evenly divided" on the question of whether or not we found WMD. Collectively, that's a stunning 74% of all the president's supporters.
75% of Bush supporters say that most experts believe that Saddam Hussein either planned the 9/11 attacks directly or gave substantial support to Al Qaeda in carrying out the attacks. Over half believe the 9/11 commission concluded that Saddam was at least partially responsible for the attacks, despite the fact that the panel's first and most publicized conclusion was "there was no significant relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda terrorists."
Only 13% of Bush supporters could correctly identify his position on labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (Bush opposes them), vs 81% of Kerry supporters who could identify the senator's position.
Only 20% of Bush supporters could correctly identify his position on the global land mine treaty (Bush opposes it). Only 38% of Bush supporters realize that Bush opposes the International Criminal Court, only 39% realize that he pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. The sad list goes on. -- Ray W.