More Democrat Violence?
Politics
| October 6, 2004
| Tim
Things seem to have gone nuts in the last several days:
As you probably know, USA Today reported yesterday that a gunman took a few shots into the Knoxville, TN Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters.
Although the opposing Democratic chairman said, correctly, such actions were "despicable", he lost points, in my book when he added: "Maybe it was just someone who got tired of their darn Kerry signs being stolen." (To a prominent Democrat, that makes some kind of sense, apparently.)
And yesterday, as part of 20 such "protests" around the country, the choirboys of the AFL-CIO stormed Republican campaign headquarters in Orlando and Miami. Adding insult to injury, they also filed criminal charges against one of the people they attacked.
Earlier, vandals "burned" an 8-by-8 foot swastika into the lawn of a Madison, WI man who displayed a Bush-Cheney 2004 sign. From later reports, it appears more than one home was vandalized in this fashion.
And now, fifty Democrats have "stormed" a Bush-Cheney campaign headquarters in West Allis, WI, and used a bull horn to deafen those within. (Thanks, American Mind)
I fear this bad behavior by Democrat partisans will only increase the pressure they will feel to commit some attack against themselves, to "even up the score" and attempt to make Republicans look bad. As I've mentioned previously, (a) I expect the attack to "look" dangerous but not be intended to harm anyone, (b) to be against a clear Democratic target (such as a campaign headquarters), and (c) be untraceable, but also (d) leave clear signs which would make it appear to have been perpetrated by a Bush supporter.
For the record, I'd love to be wrong about this. We don't need any more violence in this election.
UPDATE: And here are more incidents from NRO's "The Kerry Spot." The motivations of one swastika-painting vandal:
"It was not an act of hate," said Dustin "Dusty" Dzuck, 17, a senior at Denfeld High School. "My mom called me a terrorist. It wasn't terrorism; it was activism. It was for a cause.... The whole thing is, basically, I just wanted to get the word out there that in my opinion Bush isn't doing this country any good."
I see. Having an opinion entitles one to vandalize another's property.
Doesn't it occur to these people that in vandalizing these people's houses, and in spray-painting their property with a sign of hatred, it is the vandals who are behaving exactly as the Nazis did?
Your logic sucks. Just because people are anti- Bush, doesn't mean they are Democrats. That is a fallacy on your part. Even though some activists may be Democrats, there are more ideologies in America than Democrat or Republican. Of course, it is easier to take the evidence of vandalization against Republican supporters and then take the idea that Democrats are the other major party to Republicans and tie the two together, but that logic doesn't hold up. Certainly, though, you are correct that violence is not good no matter where it comes from. But don't put the blame where you have no evidence of it residing.
Dan,
Good to see you again!
On one hand, I can't absolutely prove, for example, that ALL the members of the AFL-CIO who invaded Republican headquarters in Florida were Democrats. Nor can I prove that it wasn't a gang of very unhappy gun-toting Libertarians who stole computers from Republican headquarters in Washington.
But I think it's reasonable to presume these people will also probably be working to help Democrats put Kerry into office.
I'm an independent, not a Republican. I've never voted for a Republican for president. So I can see your point about not calling all people who oppose one candidate by the name of the other party. So, being very technical here, I probably shouldn't have implied the 50 who attacked the Republicans in Wisconsin were all Democrats.
But it's also fair game to view this as "Democrat violence", as long as a good majority of those involved in such were Democrats: If a sizeable fraction of those involved were Democrats according to some strict definition you want to force others to adopt, then it's still true that we have a large group of Democrats engaged in violence.
But all that is not a matter of "logic", but rather "nomenclature".
Now, to get my core points here:
So I assume you've also spent a lot of time correcting those who lean left against the same error? Been to democratic underground or other left-leaning blogs and reprimanded them sternly, telling them the swiftboat vets aren't all Republicans, or that not everyone who disagrees with them is really a Republican?
Do you wander around to liberal blogs telling them not to assign blame with anything less than 100% absolute proof? Rebuked anyone lately for claiming that "Bush lied" or that Cheney started the war for Halliburton? Hmmm?
If so, then good for you! I admire that kind of dedication to principle, pedantic though it be. We need more people like you! Thank you! I graciously accept your principled rebuke here, too.
If not, you should consider what this is telling you: That your allegedly now-important standard really isn't, over all, but is less important to you than, say, partisanship.
If so, then this is just a hypocritical ploy to find some small error (which I'm now glad I made, as it allows this interesting conversation), when you can't dispute the more obvious and important implication: that those commiting such violence undoubtedly generally hold principles which anchor them firmly on the left end of the political spectrum.
If so, then what could it be about this fact that bothers you so much? Hmmmm?
So why are they mad at Bush, in theory? Right!: because they don't buy into his principles. And (unless you're like me) what are his principles, allegedly? Oh yeah, conservative ones.
So yes, it's possible someone with conservative principles -- socially and/nor fiscally -- could be attacking Republicans and trying to keep Bush out of the White House. Because Kerry's just so much more... uh... conservative.
It's just not bloody likely enough to be worth entertaining.
Unless, I suspect, you're a liberal grasping for straws.
Why not just condemn this sort of behavior? Look, if these were Republicans, I'd be glad to have them nailed, for making the rest of us conservatives look bad. We don't need people like that.
Speaking of which...
I'm a conservative. I make no bones about it.
It's been my experience that many liberals hate being labelled for what they are. I'd guess, just based on your aversions here, that you yourself tend towards the left end of the spectrum, politically.
Can you tell me, truthfully, that I'm wrong?
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« "WMD" Trailer Back in the News |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Head For Rent »
|
Your logic sucks. Just because people are anti- Bush, doesn't mean they are Democrats. That is a fallacy on your part. Even though some activists may be Democrats, there are more ideologies in America than Democrat or Republican. Of course, it is easier to take the evidence of vandalization against Republican supporters and then take the idea that Democrats are the other major party to Republicans and tie the two together, but that logic doesn't hold up. Certainly, though, you are correct that violence is not good no matter where it comes from. But don't put the blame where you have no evidence of it residing.
Posted by: Dan on October 14, 2004 03:39 PM