House Democratic Fundraising Committee To Attack Patriotism Of GOP Members Over July 4 Weekend
House Democratic Fundraising Committee To Attack Patriotism Of GOP Members Over July 4 Weekend
Last week, Congress passed the “$106 billion military supplemental to fund the U.S. military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.” In the House, 170 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted against final passage of the supplemental citing various reasons, including opposition to a measure from the Senate version of the bill which would make a new line of credit available to the IMF at a cost of $5 billion. (CAPAF Senior Fellow Nina Hachigian explained the need for the IMF measure.)
Now, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) plans to run ads on the July 4 holiday criticizing several vulnerable Republican members for their votes against the supplemental last week. As Glenn Thrush reports, “A series of 60-second radio ads will run during drive time from July 1 through July 8, according to a script provided to POLITICO — and they have the support-our-troops ring of GOP spots.” Thrush provides the script:
Around here, we recognize Independence Day with parades … and picnics … maybe a few fireworks. But July Fourth is about more than that.
It’s about remembering those who fought for our freedoms. And those still fighting today. Congressman Lee Terry used to understand that.
When George Bush asked, Congressman Terry voted to fully fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, last year he said, quote, “We must give our military every resource it needs.”
Seems like Congressman Terry is playing politics now … Last month Congressman Terry voted AGAINST funding for those same troops. It’s true: vote No. 348 – you can look it up.
Versions of the ads are reportedly going to be run against seven Republican members: Reps. Ken Calvert (R-CA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Dan Lungren (R-CA), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Lee Terry (R-NE) and Joe Wilson (R-SC). The DCCC insists that it is simply pointing out that “[w]hen George Bush was president, Republicans were quick to criticize anyone who voted against the supplemental bills that fund the troops as against the troops. But now that Republicans are trying to score political points, they have flip flopped on troop funding.”
This, however, is not really the case. On May 14, when the House voted on its version of the supplemental — which did not include the IMF funding and a number of other changes to which many Republicans ultimately objected — 168 Republicans voted in favor of the bill. In fact, every single member whom the DCCC is targeting with its patriotism-themed ads voted for initial passage of the war funding.
Steve Benen writes, “As a substantive, policy matter, lawmakers can have completely legitimate reasons for voting against military spending measures, and opposition to these expenditures does not make one an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer.”
On multiple occasions, ThinkProgress has criticized Republicans and conservatives for questioning the patriotism of those who were critical of the Bush administration’s policies — it’s not any more acceptable when Democrats question Republicans’ patriotism in a similar fashion.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why do Rethuglicans hate the troops?
June 26th, 2009 at 3:39 pm“On multiple occasions, ThinkProgress has criticized Republicans and conservatives for questioning the patriotism of those who were critical of the Bush administration’s policies — it’s not anymore becoming when Democrats question Republicans’ patriotism in a similar fashion.”
I am glad to see this. Wrong is wrong, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat doing it.
Kudos to TP for this story.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:40 pmInteresting, TP…
I would say that if these specific R’s were a significant part of the “they’re unpatriotic” crowd back then, then that makes them fair game now. Otherwise, yeah. The notion that “the other guys are bad so we can be bad too” is the same one that R’s use to justify torture and rape. We shouldn’t let them sucker us into that trap.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:41 pmThe party of Rahm. Political hacks and the permanent campaign fill the airwaves with blather.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:41 pmI wonder if FML will explain why George Soros is funding a site that attacks Democrats?
June 26th, 2009 at 3:41 pmstateofthedivision Says:
The party of Rahm. Political hacks and the permanent campaign fill the airwaves with blather.
Funny, you never had a problem with it before…
June 26th, 2009 at 3:43 pmI’m not sure FML could explain how it got out of bed and ate breakfast this morning.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:44 pmAny more of these, and FML’s little brainless head is going to implode!
June 26th, 2009 at 3:44 pmshhhhhhhhhhhh…..don’t give them a heads up
June 26th, 2009 at 3:46 pmGood work! There in a nutshell is the difference between liberals and conservatives. We believe wrong is wrong regardless of party. Hopefully they will pull the ad or at least take out the “un patriotic” part. Bust on them for flip flopping but I am sick of this un american crap everyone throws around.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:46 pmDon’t you know?
Repiggies just love our soldiers, because the soldiers fight all these stupid wars that the repiggies want, but don’t have the goddamned guts to go fight themselves.
Those publicly pious golf-cart warriors are loathesome creeps.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:47 pmwell, first impulse: if the shoe fits…
but, so, if this sentence were omitted -
Congressman Lee Terry used to understand that.
- that would solve the problem…?
i think so.
the rest is just facts. that’s all that’s needed.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:47 pmWho in the world thought of such a brilliant approach? That’s right, the Republicans did during the last administration.
These “Democrats” are so busy trying to figure out where to spend their new corporate lobbyist bribes, they aren’t even exerting any effort.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:50 pmi beg to differ with TP on this one; it’s true the ad implies that republicans who vote against the supplemental are unpatriotic, but as i read the script, the more important point being made is that the republicans cast the debate in objective terms: you MUST vote for spending money on the military, no matter what it’s up to, or else you aren’t supporting the troops. They intentionally left no room for thoughtful discourse or a robust debate, and no room to backtrack.
much like their (wide) stances on infidelity, where they left themselves no room to say maybe cheating on your wife or being gay isn’t so bad. The reason why the sex scandals hit repubs harder than dems is that dems don’t go out and demagogue about their own personal marital virtue. so when dems get caught, it’s a family tragedy and a personal disappointment, but when repubs get caught, it’s *also* a revelation of hypocrisy and a betrayal of public trust.
no one trusts dems to not fool around. and dems don’t ask them to.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:50 pmYeah. Iraq and Afghanistan were such huge threats to Americans’ freedom.
I think the true threats to our freedom is a bit closer to home.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:52 pm.
So, Democrats are FOR the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the undeclared war in Pakistan?
Why else fund what you once claimed to be against?
If I say one day, that I’m against drugs on the street, then what do you call me when, the next day, I’m selling crack on my block?
.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:55 pmI do not approve of this. Turnabout is not always fair play.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:55 pmStick it to em Dems! Let’s see how they like their own medicine.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:56 pmWOW
Give ‘em hell dems! Slam those little wussies.
Just with they would play hardball over health care reform instead of selling us out with fake compromises and “bipartisan” crap that actually just capitulates to a bill that American’s overwhelmingly don’t want.
Go figure…
June 26th, 2009 at 3:58 pm.
My once, anti-war House Representative voted for another year of more war…
… And he’s known as a progressive Democrat in certain corners of the political world.
NOT BY ME.
I call him a two faced LIAR!
.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:59 pmBobwurst,
Funny, you never had a problem with it before.
If it’s Republican political hacks:
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2008/10/character-counts-week-gets-off-to-bad.html
If it’s Rahm’s style:
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2008/11/change-or-narrative.html
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/01/salty-fran-vs-potty-mouthed-rahm.html
June 26th, 2009 at 4:00 pmLee Terry is my Congressman. While I did not vote for him for a number of reasons I wish this ad would be stuffed. This district is the home of Offutt Airforce Base, where Bush decided to hide out for awhile on 9/11, so there is a real possibility that this ad would backfire in this district anyway. Terry has had back-to-back 55-45 wins so the seat is no longer safe but let’s not sink to the Republican win at all cost level. We are better than that.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:01 pmGlad TP is spolighting this — questioning someone’s patriotism is so yesterday, so Karl Rove, and definitely beneath the Democrats. Enough with the childish games already. Eight years was enough (well actually longer when you take into account Ken Starr, Henry Hyde and the BS during Clinton’s terms).
June 26th, 2009 at 4:02 pmMax Anax junius -1 Says:
My once, anti-war House Representative voted for another year of more war…
Congress had a vote to extend the deadline for Iraq beyond the one set in SOFA? I hadn’t heard such a thing. Link please?
June 26th, 2009 at 4:02 pmHere’s the video FML doesn’t want you to see. What he does when he’s not trolling on TP.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
The argument in the ad is that the Regressives are trying to score political points. From that p.o.v, the ads are entirely justified. How could someone who voted FOR the troop funding then, vote AGAINST it now, at a time when the troops are out there? This is certainly no change of heart on the part of the Regressives, and the ads highlight it.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:04 pmJune 26th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
.
So, the Democrats who once voted against funding the Iraq/Afghanistan wars WERE against the troops, REALLY?
Well, according to the Democrats who capitulated and folded to political pressures, now that they are on the “other side” of the fence, those they’ve abandoned on the anti-war side are now against the troops? Really?
So, by their standards, these Democrats really weren’t against the troops, even when they appeared to be? Really?
.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:06 pm– it’s not any more acceptable when Democrats question Republicans’ patriotism in a similar fashion.
_____________________________________________________________
Amen.
As much as the general hypocrisy of the GOP on the funding bill offends me (Republicans funding the troops – good, Democrats funding the troops – bad), I can’t see anything constructive coming from pouring more gasoline on the fire. We can get a lot more done if both sides drop the petty sniping.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:06 pmgood post. I’m sure it will short out some wires on some lurking trolls out there.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pm.
Some may chide:
Why do Republicans hate the troops…
Just like when the Republicans chided the Democrats…
… But now, after this Flip/Flop, I have to simply ask:
Why do Democrats hate Principles?
.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pm17.stjack Says: i beg to differ with TP on this one; it’s true the ad implies that republicans who vote against the supplemental are unpatriotic, but as i read the script, the more important point being made is that the republicans cast the debate in objective terms: you MUST vote for spending money on the military, no matter what it’s up to, or else you aren’t supporting the troops. They intentionally left no room for thoughtful discourse or a robust debate, and no room to backtrack.
The biggest problem here is two-fold: One, it allows the republicans to define the terms, something we are wont to point out but woefully unprepared to put a stop to. Two, by parroting the republican-defined meme, it merely perpetuates the fallacies in republican’s terms and makes it all the more difficult to overcome their alternate-universe talking points.
The goal is to explode those fallacies, otherwise when harder decisions emerge (and they will) such as starving a bad policy of funding, those fallacies will get trotted out and, since the dems recycled them, far harder to overcome.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pmMy initial reaction was a smile and the thought that “turnabout is fair play,” but TP’s stance is far more ethical. And it’s correct. There is never any reason for liberals or Democrats to play the nasty games that the GOP has been famous for.
Still, I can imagine the faux outrage and crocodile tears coming from the Republicans when these ads run.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pmOh ElBruce,
You got me…
… I meant the continuation of war.
Nothing says “open purse” like a blank check.
.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:13 pm.
NEXT on FOXNEWS: Karl Rove (D)
.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:16 pmWell said.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:23 pmi didn’t like this when the republicans did it and i am not a fan of it now. soldiers in a combat zone should not be used as a political tool. and why are democrats now in favor of these wars??? if they aren’t careful they are going to end up owning them.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:26 pmThe use of the term “flip-flop” is getting to be a pet-peeve of mine. It’s one thing when someone on the campaign trail changes their opinion, in an effort to win public approval for their (revised) vision; it’s another thing entirely when someone changes their opinion in the course of governing, while considering concrete details.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:29 pmI certainly agree that it’s not appropriate to use this vote to question anyone’s patriotism, whichever side of the isle is involved.
However, I also think it’s totally clear that the republicans flip-flopped here. Under Bush, voting against the bill was voting against the troops, while under Obama, voting against the bill is taking a principled stand against (wasteful spending, communism, or whatever else). It may not be anti-troop, but it’s sure hypocritical. And it wasn’t just radio ads trying to misuse the votes in this fashion, it was a long list of member of congress and the administration (something I hope I don’t see this time around)
June 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pmwhy is there a premium on patriotism? my passport says i am an american citizen. i pay my taxes and have no criminal record. i’m not familiar what patriotism is and why it matters.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pmand, just to be clear, i’m also uncomfortable with stooping to rethugs’ level. however, these messages are not for our ears, they’re for the ears of those who bought the whole “dems are unpatriotic because they won’t support a war supplemental with no conditions” demagoguery. so far, out of the people who have condemned this tactic as unfair turnabout, did any of you buy it when the repubs said this about the dems?
June 26th, 2009 at 4:30 pmI’ve got to admit that I am a little disappointed that the dems have let this news out 2 weeks ahead of the showing.
Much better would have let it be a genuine 4th of July firework.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:38 pm.
Dear watchpup,
You describe eloquently, the Bush/Cheney years.
.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:39 pmWasn’t right when they did it to us. How stupid.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:40 pm.
Oh, I get it…
… It’s not a political stunt when Democrats do it.
NO?
.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:41 pmMax Anax junius -1 Says:
… I meant the continuation of war.
Nothing says “open purse” like a blank check.
I wouldn’t consider yanking the funding without an exit strategy to be a responsible way of bringing the conflict in Iraq to a close.
.
realitarian Says:
i’m not familiar what patriotism is and why it matters.
Patriotism: the willingness to suffer some measure of personal risk and/or hardship in order to defend and uphold the ideals and principles behind your nation’s government.
For example, accepting a potentially slightly higher chance of being hit by a terrorist attack in order to ensure that everyone in U.S. custody got due process under the law would be patriotic. Opposing that would not be.
As another example, paying your fair share of taxes so the country can get out of a rut would be patriotic; opposing that would not be.
I could go on, but those two points are a good start. As a good rule of thumb, Democrats are always patriotic and Republicans are always unpatriotic, on any issue you could name.
.
watchdog Says:
Those damn Obama politics.
What does Obama have to do with this? He didn’t run his campaign based on patriotism-bludgeoning. I believe the “Country First” guy did though.
June 26th, 2009 at 4:46 pmI need more Chinese made miniflags to stick in the yard, pasticized flag tableclothes, and napkins.Can I get those at a big discount house? These lead dyes don’t run…
June 26th, 2009 at 4:48 pmPatriotism is just a word used to manipulate people.
Someone could say that supporting the war in Iraq to save your country from terrorism would be patriotic and opposing it would not be.
Just insert your political agenda into “Unless you support _______, then you are not patriotic.”
That’s all the word is good for.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pmWhy do partisan hacks like yourself never read the articles, but instead just comment on what you “think” they say.
Scroll up and read.
This article by Ryan Powers is condemning the partisan hypocrisy of the democrats, not the republicans.
I swear if it weren’t for writers like Ryan, and a few of the more level headed bloggers in here, I’d say this place had degenerated into a cesspool of goosestepping foaming at the mouth profane, juvenile, ignorant partisan hacks.
In truth the only difference between many of you and the republicans is the direction you turn your heads while goosestepping in ranks.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:33 pmsounds reasonable. however, by that same definition, a guy fighting for equal rights for women/non-muslims/gays in saudi arabia would be “unpatriotic”.
it all boils down to what the “ideals and principles behind your nation’s government” are. patriotism by itself holds no virtue.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:45 pmalright, crotchdog, you’re way off topic here. i think bruce’s comment stands.
is it your strategy to just insert snipes about obama to annoy people, or is it in some way connected to the issue we’re talking about. you really need to be more articulate here.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:47 pmI think this is going to be a learning experience for the Republicans. Next time they are in the majority they may think twice before questioning Dems patriotism. However, I am not optimistic about this lesson because the Republicans have been beating the defense drum for decades.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:51 pmWho starts a sentence with “In truth”? It is sort of a flag…
June 26th, 2009 at 5:54 pmI don’t want to enter the debate here… but its important to note that there was some major selective editing on behalf of Think Progress here on Steve Benen’s piece.
TP quoted him as saying:
However, if you read Steve’s post, he actually is in favor of using the ad’s against the GOP, as his next sentence reads:
I’m not taking one side or the other, but I don’t think that distorting quotes to prove a point is the way to have any sort of civilized debate.
June 26th, 2009 at 5:55 pmNothing defines “Republican” like hypocrisy.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:38 pmAnother partisan who didn’t read the article.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:45 pmJust what we need. Another supplemental bill. Bush did this same thing. This is how he managed to put us so far in debt. He did this so the money would not show up as part of our national debt. It is deferred debt. Disgusting. The Iraq war has been funded by all supplemental additions.
I am for needling and causing discomfort to the Republicans. They spent all these years defining patriotism according to their standards. If I remember right, and I do, it hasn’t been that long. Patriotism is never questioning, never dissenting, being gung ho for the war, no matter how ill advised,and never criticizing.
I object to that. And I object to continuing the war in Afghanistan. All these years and our military are still dying. We are expanding the quagmire. You watch now. This latest widening the Afghanistan campaign will be Obama’s Vietnam. And lest any of us think we will get out of Iraq, just look at the escalation in violence as we leave the cities to the Iraq army. WE will be sucked right back in again and we are not out the door yet. Not till the end of this month. I can hear it now. “We have to go back in. Look at all the sacrifices our military have made.” “We need to go back or it will have been for nothing.” So we will end up back in the cities, back in the middle of it, as well as the expansion in Afghanistan.
So both wars will continue to bleed us dry. Frankly I don’t give a damn what happens to Iraq. I don’t want us losing anymore of our military or our fortune we no longer have. Call me short sighted. But enough is enough.
I do not want the Democrats or Obama to make the same mistakes as the last President, who lied us into that stinking, lousy war. Has anyone ever asked, what do we get out of it? For the life of me, I cannot get an answer to that question. In that part of the world, they fight one another for centuries. It is an understood way of life. They hold grudges closer then you can hold a lover. And it is forever.
So tell me anyone. What (lasting) value do we get from this war? What am I missing?
June 26th, 2009 at 6:55 pmThis article is exactly why I prefer to have progressive moderates in charge or at leasat speaking out – TP, unlike the knee-jerk neoCon blogs, is willing to be critical of people it usually supports, if they are in fact wrong. Good article with a good point, even if I’m not going to lose a lot of sleep over Republicans getting Republicanned.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:02 pmYou rest my case.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:14 pmwon’t work. when republicans do it to dems americans actually believe them.
June 26th, 2009 at 7:35 pmthe great GOPsby Says:
Hi Twajie
June 26th, 2009 at 7:40 pmOkay, I emailed the DCCC as follows:
Dear DCCC:
There is a thread up at the progressive blog ThinkProgress indicating that you are planning to run several ads regarding the Republican members of the House who voted against the recent military supplemental. Here is the link if you haven’t seen it: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/26/dccc-ads-war-funding/
It was wrong when Republicans questioned the patriotism of Democrats who voted against Iraq war spending.
It was wrong when former VP Dick Cheney questioned the morals and the intellect and the patriotism of American Citizens who were against his war.
And it’s wrong for you to spend money questioning the patriotism of these individuals, no matter how wrong-headed you and I may feel they are. We have had enough of these divisive tactics. Please reconsider this matter and stop this type of campaign. It will only backfire on Democrats and progressives.
Sincerely,
Jane E. Schneider
(City, State)
Here’s the contact link if you want to email them: http://www.dccc.org/page/st/contact
June 26th, 2009 at 8:00 pmgsy987, I wasn’t trying to distort Benen’s remarks. I just wanted to highlight that particular aspect of his post. I agree that this is an easy response on their part, but it doesn’t make it right.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:53 pmIf you’re a soldier in a combat zone you don’t care where the ’stuff’ that protects you comes from, you just want more of it. I’m fed up with anyone trying to claim patriotism for political reasons. This is all just BS.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:26 pmIts just not about “who’s game”. It’s about who we are.
They do dirty tricks and we complain, and rightfully so. But then when we get the opportunity to do the same dirty tricks and we take it, what does that make us? I’ll tell you.
It makes us not only as bad as them, it makes us hypocrites for complaining about the dirty tricks in the first place.
If they do dirty tricks, and we do dirty tricks when we get the chance, then all we’ve got is two groups doing dirty tricks to each other.
You claim the liberals are better than the conservatives.
Then we need to act like it.
June 26th, 2009 at 10:41 pm“On multiple occasions, ThinkProgress has criticized Republicans and conservatives for questioning the patriotism of those who were critical of the Bush administration’s policies — it’s not any more acceptable when Democrats question Republicans’ patriotism in a similar fashion.”
Dang, I had to check to be sure TP hadn’t been hijacked. Such honesty is quite a welcome shock. ;)
June 26th, 2009 at 10:50 pmNo, upright left, the hijacking is going on on another thread. Mind the trollshit.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:02 pmYou must be a neoconservative incognito, attempting to make progressives and liberals look like ignorant, rabid, foul, unbelievably profane lunatics.
And if you’re not, you should consider seeing if they’d hire you. You might as well get paid for it.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:06 am______
republicans hate facts Says:
“This site is CONSISTENTLY HONEST…”
June 27th, 2009 at 1:32 am
______
Shocking honesty from TP and hilarity from rhf, (”Mizz J, rhf has always been a nutcase. He’s just always been on our side, so he was tolerable. Now he’s a Clinton ass sucker, and he can’t contain himself against the “hopium” smokers. What an idiot.”)
Excellent. ;)
June 27th, 2009 at 9:29 amWow. this thread is fantastic.
It was an opportunity to show the hypocrisy of the Republican position and then to offer leadership on how it should really be done. Perfect.
A tit for tat argument would be justified, but it would have signaled that progressives are only more of the same.
This, however, is different. A tact that is objectively better than what Republicans did.
That’s real leadership.
Ryan Powers, very nice.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:28 amWAYNEBRO. you are right on.
It would be justifiable to say, ‘you did it to us, now we’ll do it to you’. But, that’s not better, it’s the same – under a different banner.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans is a good idea. Repeating their hypocrisy is not.
If there is real desire to take the wind out of troll sails, this is how it’s done.
The position of this thread (the Power’s position) is objectively better than the way Republicans acted in the past.
June 27th, 2009 at 11:38 amShocking honesty from TP and hilarity from rhf, (”Mizz J, rhf has always been a nutcase. He’s just always been on our side, so he was tolerable. Now he’s a Clinton ass sucker, and he can’t contain himself against the “hopium” smokers. What an idiot.”)
Excellent. ;)
June 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pmI give props to TP for recognizing wrongdoings by any side.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:30 am