Foul Play

The NYTimes.com editorial board is daintily appalled:

We did not ... anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda. Yet that is the message they are delivering - with a repetition that makes it clear this is an organized effort to paint the Democratic candidate as a friend to terrorists. ...

This is despicable politics. It's not just polarizing - it also undermines the efforts of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency to combat terrorists in America. Every time a member of the Bush administration suggests that Islamic extremists want to stage an attack before the election to sway the results in November, it causes patriotic Americans who do not intend to vote for the president to wonder whether the entire antiterrorism effort has been kidnapped and turned into part of the Bush re-election campaign. The people running the government clearly regard keeping Mr. Bush in office as more important than maintaining a united front on the most important threat to the nation.

And via Atrios, there is this:

The Republican Party acknowledged Thursday that it has been sending mass mailings to residents of Arkansas and West Virginia warning that ''liberals'' seek to ban the Bible while promoting same-sex marriage, according to a report in The New York Times. As part of the GOP's efforts to mobilize religious voters for President Bush, the mailings include an image of the Bible under the word "banned" and an image of a man proposing to another man under the word "allowed." The Arkansas mailing warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." The West Virginia mailing is similar in content.

At one level, of course, it's the same old story. Conservatives have been calling liberals traitors and degenerates for decades - the difference is that the top of the Republican party always pretended to be above it all. They were the "responsible Republicans." Well, the pretense is over. The national Republican party has officially decided it is unconstrained by any sense of decency. They also are willing to endanger the safety of the country, so long as it means they retain power.

None of this is really surprising. Most liberals have seen it happening for years, which is why we're so angry. What does remain surprising is that decent, individual Republicans recognize what their party is doing, and don't like it, but don't draw the appropriate conclusion: the reason why the Right has jumped into the mud is that they know that if they made their arguments fairly, they would lose. And once the inhibition against this kind of behavior is broken, then the question becomes, what next?

Comments

[bitchphd]

"daintily appalled" is exactly right. The NYT is ticking me off.

"We did not ... anticipate that those on the Bush team would dare to argue that a vote for John Kerry would be a vote for Al Qaeda." Yeah, and a few weeks ago you were saying that you didn't realize that you were being fed a line of crap about the WMD, either. Hire some journalists, you effete bastards. (Yes, I'm using effete in the correct sense. Deliberately.)

Wipes spittle from chin...

[Mithras]

Well, it could be a good division of labor. One one hand, most smart people who recognize what's going on have things like blogs and The Daily Show. (Yes, I know, I'm being self-congratulatory.) On the other, there are stupid people who can be convinced to vote the right way but get the vapors if the language is too strong. So, the NYTimes.com appeals to them, since it allows them not to get any dirt on themselves. Or spittle, as the case may be.

[iocaste]

You know, me and mine have been wondering whether the Democrast have ever committed the kinds of dirty tricks for which the Republicans have become famous. I mean, even leaving aside this campaign cycle, it seems that looking back, it's always been the Republicans who were out busy sabotaging elections, back through Watergate and earlier. Now, am I just really partisan? Ignorant of political history? Or is it true? I suppose there might have been some awful political trickery -- not to mention flat out voter suppression -- by the Southern Democrats back in the day, if you even call that the same Democratic party.... which Zell Miller wouldn't.