I took your following two statements to refer to that “with us or against us” line as I have heard so many other complain about.

I mean, we *are* talking about the same George W. Bush who, even while speaking of the need for bipartisanship, went about saying that anyone who disagreed with him on policy was supporting the terrorists, and working to defeat America? Why yes, i do believe we are.

and

And having someone impune your patriotism for not supporting *everything* you’re after . . .

Sorry if I was mistaken.

I’ll give you the Rep. Schmidt example as a very low blow but as you point out the President didn’t say anything, in fact he denounced such attacks. And please don’t cite Scott McClellan as a credible surrogate for the Administration.

There were some low blows but where was the questioning of patriotism? There’s a difference between being wrong and opposing one’s country. Murtha was wrong and was using his war service credentials to attack the administration (and the President’s and VP’s lack of credentials) and its wartime policies. Seemed tit for tat to me.

I think Democrats to often conflate hard criticism with questioning their patriotism or worse, they fabricate this attacks on their patriotism to avoid answering the substance of the criticism.

But I’ll grant you the arguing gets very tiresome and it’s not helpful. and I’ll grant you your point on NCLB. I thought it was an attempt by Bush to be bipartisan but it obviously didn’t work out that way.

So anyway, how about Max Cleland and John Kerry? No matter what the WSJ says, these were both the subjects of rather intense attacks on their patriotism by those who were promoting GWB’s interests–and GWB didn’t do anything, anything at all, to distance himself from the attacks (even when given the clear opportunity). There were certainly policy differences that were raised, but raising a few policy differences in the midst of aspersions against patriotism (have you actually *read* Unfit for Command?–i wouldn’t call that a policy-based book) does not absolve someone of charges of attacking someone’s patriotism.

I’d argue that the whole reaction of certain people to Michelle Obama’s “for the first time I’m proud to be an American” line also falls into patriotism-questioning.

‘Nother concrete example: HDS Greenway wrote up a catalog of questions against Rep. Murtha’s patriotism by Bush allies in 2005: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/29/bushs_patriotism_smear/

Yeah, yeah, i know, you can always say that GWB didn’t say any of this himself, so his hands are clean. Well, aside from the fact that he rarely says much of anything on the record (when compared to most previous presidents), what has he said to counter these sorts of attacks? When his allies are doing the dirty work, he really oughtn’t be given the luxury of sitting back to keep his his hands clean–you know, the whole sin of omission thing.

And i’d certainly agree with anyone who says that the reverse has occurred, and Bush’s opponents have criticized his (and his allies’) patriotism. I’m not even sure who started it. I do not that i’m tired of it, not least because it’s led to a horrible, horrible state of debate in this country right now.

p.s. Re: NCLB, i will repeat: Just because something has Democratic co-sponsors, even when one of them is a Kennedy, does not automatically make it Democratic legislation.

I’m not saying NCLB or Medicare were good legislature or that the Dems were fully behind it but he tried and they didn’t want him to get any credit for the massive spending on their issues. That’s what they’re supposed to do!

And I really think the “with us or against us” line of attack is unfair and has been distorted into urban myth. He used that line in reference to other countries that wouldn’t cooperate in holding accountable those responsible for 9/11.

He used that phrase seven years ago and merely meant that there was no room for neutrality when it came to fighting terrorism. But his critics have extrapolated that into some vicious critique of his domestic opponents for ANYTHING that differs with him.

Please! I don’t understand why Democrats are so thin-skinned about their own patriotism but they sure get defensive and take almost anything as an attack on it.

I have not seen Republicans attack Democrats’ patriotism. Instead, when Democrats are rightfully criticized on issues, they turn around and say “How dare you question my patriotism?” as to shut down the debate. Kerry and now Obama have done this.

The WSJ has been all over this Democrat tactic for years and they could not be more right:

Surely it is fair for any politician to take issue with his opponent’s official acts. And if those acts were motivated by something other than antipathy toward America–as any fair-minded observer must presume they were–they could have been defended on their merits. Instead, Democrats themselves raised the issue of patriotism by defensively denying that they lacked it. A cardinal rule of political communication is never to repeat an accusation in the course of denying it (”I am not a crook”). These candidates “repeated” a charge no one had even made.

But read the whole thing.

And that’s ignoring the utter lack of executive willingness to compromise on one of the two biggest legislative vs. executive issue of our day, continued funding for the war in Iraq. (The other is the somewhat more arcane issue of whether the legislature has the ability to freely investigate potentially illegal activities undertaken by the executive branch, though i’ll allow that that one’s not really a partisan issue.)

And having someone impune your patriotism for not supporting *everything* you’re after, even after going along with such “half a loaf” compromises such as what came out of NCLB and Medicare expansion? Really, that insanely anti-bipartisan practice pretty much trumps occasional bipartisan horse-trading on legislation, at least as i see it.

But as I see it, Pres. Bush has tried to work with Democrats a lot (No Child Left Behind, huge expansion of Medicare, etc.).

They just slap his hand away and prefer to demonize him. It’s easier that way.

I will agree that partisanship is generally a good thing (while still being civil), that’s what democracy is all about after all. When you hear bipartisanship being praised effusively from Capitol Hill you better start hiding your wallet.

I mean, we *are* talking about the same George W. Bush who, even while speaking of the need for bipartisanship, went about saying that anyone who disagreed with him on policy was supporting the terrorists, and working to defeat America? Why yes, i do believe we are.

Being highly partisan isn’t a bad thing (even though it has a bad name in the popular press). However, being highly partisan while claiming not to be–that’s just hypocrisy (and stupid hypocrisy, at that).

In calling Moynihan’s rhetoric snobby, as a political philosopher, I meant this in a loving way.

Nice chatting with you.

Say what you will but GW tries to reach out. He just is not very bright and does not always do it at the right times. Like I said I am not a fan and I think over the past 8 years and going forward we really have weak choices for presidential leadership.

Clinton (not a personal fan but a political fan) was at least an absolute genius at being a politician.

Moynihan would have indeed used the snobby rhetoric but it would have went right over GW’s head.

He likely becomes more active around election time because he is spending more time in Nevada.

ThomasB,

OK. GWB has basically called people who disagree with him enemies of the United States. Classy. Sound to me like Pelosi was holding back. Man, I hope President Bush didn’t get his feelings hurt, because those Democrats are such meanies.

I do miss Moynihan. He would have blasted Bush with more snobby rhetoric.

The contempt is there because of the disrespectful tone. GW is not, in my opinion, very bright but the one thing Iwill give him credit for is being a classy guy in that he is quite respectful verbally of everyone even those that lambast him daily. Speaker Pelosi most recently said that he is a “total failure”. Pretty strong words for someone who has done absolutely nothing that she promised her constituency. Classy politicians are a dying breed. When I think of outstanding statesman that knew how to play the game and do it brilliantly I think of Moynihan, Nunn, Rudman, Dole etc. Those guys got it and actually got things done together.

At the end of the day you cannot be a “good” politician and be a member of the church that is honest about it. Romney is a perfect case in point. Not to long ago he was pro abortion then changed. I have heard is reasoning and though it is personal it all smacks of political expediency. I am sorry you just have to lie to much to be an effective politician and that just does not coincide with discipleship.