Tuesday, August 24, 2004

Oy -- here we go again:

McAuliffe: Dems Not Aiding GOP Protesters

Democratic Party chief Terry McAuliffe says his party doesn't need to help the thousands of protesters who will descend on New York in anticipation of next week's Republican National Convention....

He denied claims by GOP counterpart Ed Gillespie of a "blurry" line between Democrats and the protesters....

Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke said speakers at the Democratic convention where John Kerry was nominated for president were mostly against the Iraq war and in favor of organized labor and abortion rights.

"Now anti-war, pro-labor, pro-abortion groups plan protests outside the hall in New York and the (Democratic National Committee) is trying to distance itself from them," Dyke said. "They have been married for months and now they are pretending they have never met."


--AP

Atrios quotes The Daily Show and the L.A. Times editorial page today on the subject of reporters feeling it's not their job to point out that a lie is a lie. Well, this is a lie, everyone who knows anything about left and liberal politics knows it's a lie, and yet Democrats are going to have to respond to it over and over again until whatever happens in the streets of New York during the convention fades from the headlines.

Part of the problem is that "liberal" over the past fifteen years has become, one the one hand, a synonym for "Democrat" and, on the other, a synonym for "commie" or "pinko" -- so a pierced anarchist or a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist who loathes John Kerry is now dubbed a "liberal," which means "member of Kerry's party and Clinton's party and Terry McAuliffe's party."

A large percentage of the people in the streets will vote for Kerry, but the Democratic Party has no reason to be involved in these demos -- overtly or covertly. The memories of '68 are too painful. No reporter looking for genuine connections will find them, except by playing Six Degrees of Separation -- yet no reporter will say that, because the GOP says there's a connection and you can't call one of your sources a liar, even if you're telling the truth.

No comments: