From professional Bush-hater Paul Krugman:
There was a time when patriotic Americans from both parties would have denounced any president who tried to take political advantage of his role as commander in chief. But that, it seems, was another country.Apparently so. Does Krugman remember Dwight Eisenhower? Obviously he does, because he mentioned him earlier in the op/ed. Does he think Eisenhower was elected president based on his high school football career? Ah, but you say Eisenhower wasn't taking political advantage of his role as commander-in-chief to get elected; he was taking political advantage of his role as general to get elected. Uh, yeah? And the difference is? There's a difference between using military success to get elected and to get re-elected?
And what if there is? Has Krugman ever heard of Abraham Lincoln? Remember the slogan "Don't change horses in midstream?" Was Lincoln not taking political advantage of his role as commander-in-chief to get re-elected? Sure, that isn't exactly the same as this situation, either, and you can keep splitting hairs to find distinctions.
But the point is this: Bush is doing nothing unusual. He's playing up an area in which he has been successful. (We certainly know that if the war had gone badly, his opponents would have been taking political advantage of his failures as commander in chief.) This is just more sour grapes from Krugman.
Comments (6)
I have one question. What would Paul Krugman know about patriotism?
It is really embarrassing to watch the Left fulminate about George Bush's trip to the Abraham Lincoln. I hope they keep it up. The more they rant and rave, the more votes they will lose in the next election. Do they really believe that the average American is going to be swayed by their carping? Are they too stupid to see that America is proud of its military and its President?
Oh yes Martha, the Democrats are right. George Bush should not have worn anything that resembled military garb. Get real. What the average American thinks is that the Left is unpatriotic. They were wrong about the war, and now they can't even have the decency to shut up and let the country show their respect for the brave men and women of the Arm Forces of the US.
Posted by Richard | May 9, 2003 12:09 AM
Posted on May 9, 2003 00:09
I don't care that much either way--I think David makes fairly good points in his comments about the article--but Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan, who aren't exactly leftists, have both made comments that were critical of the whole carrier landing scene. This isn't merely a partisan issue.
Posted by Dave S | May 9, 2003 1:13 PM
Posted on May 9, 2003 13:13
> I have one question. What would Paul
> Krugman know about patriotism?
It's a rhetorical question, right?
Can you see into Krugman's soul or, instead, do you believe that patriotism needs to be worn on one's sleave to be genuine?
> Do they really believe that the average
> American is going to be swayed by their > carping?
Yeah, they do. They believe it will bring much needed (and much overdue) attention to the President's military service record.
His record is undisputed. Check out what we know: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_05_04_dneiwert_archive.html#200265501
> Oh yes Martha, the Democrats are right.
Who's Martha?
> What the average American thinks is
> that the Left is unpatriotic.
Who is unpatriotic? The war hero President Kennedy? The war hero President Johnson? The war hero presidential candidate McGovern? The Naval Academy graduate President Carter? The Congressional Medal of Honor winner Senator Kerry?
Or, again, does patriotism need to be worn on one's sleave to be genuine?
> They were wrong about the war, and
> now they can't even have the decency
> to shut up and let the country show
> their respect for the brave men and
> women of the Arm Forces of the US.
Who disrespected the men and women of the Armed Forces?
People were (and are) criticizing the President.
Or, does your version of patriotism preclude any criticiques of the President? Should we all just shut up? And, thereby, preserving democracy?
partha
Posted by Partha Mazumdar | May 9, 2003 1:48 PM
Posted on May 9, 2003 13:48
This response will be in two parts since I exceeded the maximum word limit.
Partha,
It's a rhetorical question, right?
I would not want to look into Krugman's (or anyone else's) soul. However when he openly and continually expresses anti-American sentiments, then I would question his patriotism.
The dictionary's definition of patriot is a person who loves his country, zealously supporting and defending it and its interests.
I'm sorry, but that just does not sound like Paul Krugman, to me.
Yeah, they do. They believe it will bring much needed (and much overdue) attention to the President's military service record.
Partha, at times you are really quite amusing. The last president we had was a draft dodger who loathed the military. (I must have missed all of the times that you questioned Bill Clinton's military record.) However, it was clear that the public did not care about Bill Clinton's lack of military service, because they elected him over both George Bush and Bob Dole, who were both war heroes. So given that fact, why would you think it would matter now? Once again, the Democrats are desperate for an issue, any issue, for the next election. I will give you a hint. This is not it!
Oh yes Martha, the Democrats are right.
Partha, it is not always about you. I was using Martha, as a generic name for an average America. I was trying to indicate that Middle America would not care. I guess you missed the point.
Posted by Richard | May 9, 2003 10:42 PM
Posted on May 9, 2003 22:42
Part 2
Who is unpatriotic? The war hero President Kennedy?
Please Partha (yes I am now referring to you), don't feign outrage. It is so transparent. Once again you have missed my point. I said the LEFT is unpatriotic. You know, the people from International Answer and their ilk. Why would you equate Democrats with the Left? (I think your own biases are showing here.) All Democrats are not Leftists. Clearly, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were not Leftists. However, since you brought it up, don't mention Carter with those others. Since he left office he has shown nothing but contempt for his country by supporting every Leftist dictator he can find. Have you heard Carter condemn his friend Fidel for his latest outrages? I didn't think so!
Who disrespected the men and women of the Armed Forces?
The Left of course. You know, the ones that said that they support the military when they shoot their officers. The ones who accused the military of slaughtering civilians. The ones who accused the military of committing war crimes. Those type of folks. Do you get the picture, now?
Or, does your version of patriotism preclude any criticiques of the President?
Of course not. I think signs saying Bush = Hitler are a perfectly valid way to criticize the President and advance the political dialogue.
Should we all just shut up?
Partha, I would never want you to shut up. You amuse me too much.
Posted by Richard | May 9, 2003 10:43 PM
Posted on May 9, 2003 22:43
Desperation thy name is Partha.
Better luck next time!
Posted by Richard | May 10, 2003 3:11 AM
Posted on May 10, 2003 03:11