By Alex Distefano
By Scott Snowden
By Anna Merlan
By Steve Almond
By Jena Ardell
By Jon Campbell
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Tessa Stuart
At the Democrats' convention a few weeks ago, Barack Obama, the keynote speaker, called for civility and restraint in our political discourse. At the just-ended Republican convention, Zell Miller, the GOP keynoter, called for bile, invective, and, well, hate. Political hate. Smear hate.
We have seen nastiness at both parties' rallies beforemany will remember Pat Buchanan's garbage-truckload of rhetoric at the 1992 Republican conventionbut in my time, which goes back to FDR, I can remember no oratory sanctioned by a major party that was more obviously a hate speech than Zell Miller's.
Senator Miller, a conservative Democrat from Georgia who recently threw his support to President George Bush, again and again smeared Democratic candidate John Kerry and his party's leadership as unpatriotic and therefore unfitall the while insisting that he wasn't questioning anyone's patriotism, just "their judgment." His tone was brutal and sneering.
"For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak, and more wobbly than any other national figure. . . . As a senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harm's way, far away."
I realize politicians of all parties twist history every which way to their benefit, but wasn't it the Bush administration that sent the troops into Iraq without enough body armor or armor for the sides of their battle vehicles? Casualties rose as a result. Soldiers' parents went on the open market back home to buy state-of-the-art body vests with ceramic-plate reinforcement, and then shipped them to their sons and daughters in Iraq. Not until early this year did the Pentagon begin to fill the gap. No part of this failure had anything to do with a vote by Senator Kerry.
At no time has President Bush admitted this failure or apologized to the troops. Planners make errors in all wars, but what kind of commander in chief (using a surrogate) blames those failures on others, in this case on the man running against him in an election? Perhaps not a very stand-up commander in chief.
Back to Zell Miller's bitter speech, the tone-setter for political mastermind Karl Rove's convention production. Referring to Kerry and the Democrats, the Georgia senator said: "In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy."
And about Kerry personally, Miller asked: "This is the man who wants to be the commander in chief of our U.S. armed forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs? . . . Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. . . . This poli- tician wants to be leader of the free world. Free for how long?"
That's the kind of fear-inducing rhetoric that dictators use to keep their opponents cowed and submissive. Unfortunately it's merely a ratcheted-up version of the message President George W. Bush has been regularly sending across this nation: If you don't support the war in Iraq, you're a bad American. If you view my tax cuts that favor the wealthy as reckless, you're a bad American. When he needs to have this message magnified to scare enough people into voting him a second term, he of course turns to pit-bull surrogates like Miller and Dick Cheney, his super-hawkish vice president.
Cheney followed Zeller to the podium Wednesday night and his speech, though more muted, nonetheless carried the same message: If you vote for Democrat John Kerry, you're a weak American and you don't love your country enough.
Smirking, the vice president mocked Kerry as a man who preferred wars based on "sensitive" conduct. This drew a burst of laughter and cheering from the convention crowd. Cheney has used this routine with success before at partisan gatherings. But Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, has never said that wars can be fought using teatime manners. He did use the word sensitive during the campaignbut in the meaning of being aware of all factors and conditions when making the decision to go to war.
I don't think I can be described as a flag-waver for Senator Kerry. I have criticized his actions in print many times, primarily on issues about P.O.W.'s left behind in Vietnamissues on which Democrats and Republicans have failed equally.
This can only be one man's opinion, that of someone who has lived 70 years, starting in a New England mill town, then college and military service in Cold War Germany, followed by 45 years and counting as a reporter through several wars in Asia and lots of political combat both domestic and foreign. I have come to the conviction, after following closely the actions of both Kerry and Bush, that Senator Kerry is more fit and qualified to be president than the man who presently holds the office. Kerry might not have been my first choice, but he is able and better understands the world through personal experience than President Bush.