I don't disagree with The Bull Moose when he supposes thusly:
If Toby [Keith] had opened the '04 Democratic Convention with "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue", old John Kerry would likely occupy the Oval Office. Democrats - say no to Michael Moore and yes to Toby Keith!
Of course, the chances of that song being played at any Democratic politician's rally is about as likely as Michael Moore giving the keynote speech at the next Republican National Convention. Consider a sentence from this review, which Bull Moose exceprts:
[Keith's] 9/11 battle cry, 2002's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)," was an ugly blast of jingoism that commenced a feud with left-leaning Dixie Chick Natalie Maines.
That's right, an "ugly blast of jingoism". It's not an uncommon criticism. However, our men and women in uniform don't necessarily see it that way:
This son of an Army veteran connected right away with the Fort Lewis troops, performing numbers including “American Soldier” and “Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American).”
The latter is a chest-thumping anthem born in the months after Sept. 11, 2001. The soldiers sang along, their voices building to a growl as they got to the most provocative verse: “This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage, and you’ll be sorry that you messed with the U.S. of A, ’cause we’ll put a boot in your ass, it’s the American way.”
Keith juiced them even more between songs when he said: “I was telling General Rodgriguez, of all the weapons you have, the baddest-ass weapon you’ve got is the American soldier.”
“Hoo-ahh!” the crowd roared back with one voice.
I'm not much of a country fan; my taste is more alternative rock, so I've heard many playings of angry angry anti-war songs by artists such as Green Day, Sum 41, System Of A Down, Incubus, Eminem, and The Beastie Boys. Not that any of these songs would get played at any political convention either, but neither is their anger blithely described by reviewers as "ugly". Expressing anger at the President is hip and edgy; Keith's apparent sin was to express anger at something trivial like the destruction of the World Trade Center.
And the Democrats' problem is that they were seen as more aligned with the Keith-bashers than the Keith-supporters (such as, you know, our troops). Kerry didn't lose by much; he could have easily won had it seemed like he was less concerned with putting a boot in Bush's ass and more concerned with putting one in al Qaeda's. He'd have been better off heeding Keith's advice: doing the latter is truly "the Amercian Way".
Comments (4)
If Toby [Keith] had opened the '04 Democratic Convention with "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue", old John Kerry would likely occupy the Oval Office. Democrats - say no to Michael Moore and yes to Toby Keith!
What a ridiculous thing to say. It would take all of five minutes to come up with the Republican-generated meme that would dominate the airwaves if the Democrats did something like that.
Peter, I'm curious to know which Democrats you think are sufficiently tough on terror to be worthy of a vote. Besides Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, the latter who I don't think you can really count as a Democrat anymore. What have they done that John Kerry didn't, and vice versa?
Posted by Dave | May 19, 2005 4:37 PM
Posted on May 19, 2005 16:37
> What a ridiculous thing to say. It would
> take all of five minutes to come up with
> the Republican-generated meme that would
> dominate the airwaves if the Democrats
> did something like that.
Seriously, what would it be? I can't think of any. Really.
> Peter, I'm curious to know which Democrats
> you think are sufficiently tough on terror
> to be worthy of a vote. Besides Joe Lieberman
> and Zell Miller, the latter who I don't think
> you can really count as a Democrat anymore.
Can *you* name other tough-on-terror Democrats? That's exactly the problem I'm talking about. Lieberman and Miller, sure. And I must admit, Bill and Hillary Clinton have often been saying the right things since 9/11. Then... who indeed?
Kerry was in a tough spot, given that the public face of his party - whom he understandably did not want to alienate - was outside the Republican National Convention comparing Bush to Hitler and braying for his blood. Still, he could have perhaps appealed for calm, gently reminding people that Middle Eastern terror is indeed a real enemy, while Bush is merely an opponent.
Yet after the election the Democrats chose as their leader a man who states that Tom DeLay deserves to rot in jail while believing even Osama Bin Laden deserves a presumption of innocence. I'm not sure that's a winning strategy.
Posted by Peter | May 20, 2005 11:10 AM
Posted on May 20, 2005 11:10
Can *you* name other tough-on-terror Democrats?
I think most Democrats are just as tough on terror, if not moreso, than Bush and the Republican leadership. Republicans seem to think that "liberal" judges and gay marriage are a bigger threat to America than terrorism. They also seem to think that cutting taxes is more important than preserving the financial security and flexibility that may be needed to fight the next war. Their lack of planning for postwar Iraq has *made* Iraq into a breeding ground and an arms depot for terrorists, and it's limited the ability of our armed services to respond to future threats. Their intelligence failures have damaged the credibility of our government so that it will be more difficult to win support for a response to actual WMD/terrorism threats.
While I respect some of what they've done and I hope that their efforts result in lasting freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are many ways in which I think this administration has undermined our efforts in the war on terror--in ways I don't think most Democrats would. The fact that the press portrayed Kerry as weak and wobbly while they portrayed Bush as tough and steadfast, and the fact that a majority of the country seemed to buy into this, shows me that this was practically an unwinnable election. Tough talk does not equal toughness, and being President when we are attacked by terrorists doesn't automatically make you tough on terror. But with a wartime incumbent and a complicit press, short of nominating a Republican, there was little the Democrats could have done to overcome that idiotic meme.
For what it's worth, Howard Dean was asked if he thought Bin Laden should be executed, not whether he thought Bin Laden was guilty, and the Delay thing was simply a bit of over-the-top rhetoric. I won't defend it, other than to say that I think other Republicans' knee-jerk defense of Delay's innocence and attemtps to prevent the charges against him from getting a full hearing are much worse than a flippant comment that presumes his guilt.
Posted by Dave | May 21, 2005 12:07 PM
Posted on May 21, 2005 12:07
I wasn't meaning to rehash the Iraq war, and I wasn't saying Kerry had to embrace it. And I'm not about to defend DeLay, either.
Consider this anecdote: At dinner this weekend we were talking about the mess that the rebuilding of the WTC site has become, and a friend casually mentioned that she didn't think the 9/11 attacks were a big deal - that bad things happen everywhere, so why bother with a memorial. Two guesses as to what her party affiliation is.
Now I'm not saying that Kerry himself felt this way, but there is a large and loud group of his supporters who do, and I really think it's a problem for the Democratic party in general.
As for gay marriage, keep in mind that Kerry was just as against it as Bush was, and as Clinton was before him. But Kerry and Clinton get a free pass from the media. (Okay, Kerry was against amending the U.S. Constitution to ban it, but he was on record as supporting amending the Massachusetts Constitution to do so). Also keep in mind that everywhere it's put to a vote, gay marriage loses badly - the no vote is far larger than the pro-Bush vote. Not opining here about whether that's good or bad, but I want to point out that being against gay marriage is mathematically not solely a Republican thing.
And well, I'm in favor of cutting taxes. Sue me. I live in NYC; I've paid enough :-)
Posted by Peter | May 23, 2005 5:18 PM
Posted on May 23, 2005 17:18