Bloggers love to comment on the advertisements that congressional candidate make to promote their campaigns - as if it's the advertisements that really matter. Oh well, if you can't beat them, join them, right?
So, here I am joining them - with a twist. Instead of commenting on the insipid and patronizing advertisements created by both Ray Meier and Michael Arcuri, I'll create my own Michael Arcuri advertisement, seen below.
Oh, it's not an advertisement for Michael Arcuri. Rather, it's an advertisement for American liberty, asking you and Mike Arcuri to give a damn about it again.
By the way, FEC watchdogs, it's not an advertisement for Ray Meier either. I oppose Ray Meier's campaign as much as I oppose Michael Arcuri's (Ray Meier says he'll supports the Military Commissions Act too). Consider it an issue ad by an independent voice unaffiliated with any campaign - namely, me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Jon said - "Allen, are you paying attention to what I'm saying? Lately, it seems that you're willfully ignoring the content to make the same old argument over and over again."
Yes, I'm paying attention. That's why I said you sound like a broken record. You're stuck in a rut. Maybe I'm making the same old argument over and over because I'm trying to counter your argument.
I'll try to put a fresh spin on it. Basically, your argument is a moral one. I don't think it's fair to bring morality into political discourse because it paints your opponent as immoral, but I'll put that aside for a moment. Lets consider basic morality. If I'm low on cash, I'm in the grocery store, I thinking about stealing a candy bar - that's a decision based almost entirely on morality. The consequences are not significant as long as I don't get caught. It's not going to affect the owner of the store significantly. It doesn't really affect society much - shoplifting has been around a long time - I haven't heard that it getting worse. I'm glad that you and I and the overwhelming majority make the correct moral decision here, but either way it doesn't impact society significantly.
You are opposing Arcuri on moral grounds because he said he would have supported the horrible bill (even though I think he was just playing hardball politics). You're painting all of your fellow democrats as immoral for continuing to support him.
The elephant in the room, is the fact that by not supporting Arcuri, you are increasing the chances of our country continuing it's slide into fascism. Unlike the candy bar scenario, this moral decision has a big impact, and it is a very complicated decision. I don't think you are taking a hard look at the implications because you're blinded by your moral outrage. I THINK YOU'RE MORAL OUTRAGE IS JUSTIFIED, so don't tell me I'm not paying attention. I just think we have to look past the outrage at the bigger picture. I hope you don't write back with more moral outrage.
General Wesley Clark said this weekend, that we are losing the war on terror and that our only hope is to get the Republicans out. I think it's very important for everyone to get to the polls Nov. 7 and flip all of the levers on the Democratic Line. No, wait. If you hate Democrats you can vote for him on the Working Families line
Allen, that argument just doesn't make sense to me.
Arguing that you're fighting fascism by voting for a candidate who supports legislation that converts the American government into a fascist state is Orwellian.
Supporting the revocation of habeas corpus and half of the Bill of Rights doesn't impact society?
Society sure as hell is impacted by the Military Commissions Act - and by the refusal of most of the Democratic Party to denounce it. Michael Arcuri goes even further than that. He supports it.
Let me tell you what that support means. It's a promise. Michael Arcuri is promising that he'll support legislation like the Military Commissions Act if he gets into Congress.
Arcuri will support the end of habeas corpus, the end of the right to a fair and speedy trial, the end of the Geneva Conventions, the end of protection from self-incrimination, the end of protection from cruel and unusual punishment, the end to the right of a trial by a jury of one's peers. Arcuri will continue to support the right of George W. Bush to imprison anyone whom Bush declares to be an "enemy".
You say that it doesn't matter that the Democratic candidate supports that kind of stuff?
You belittle the impact of Arcuri's move, saying that it's just "playing hardball politics".
What you call "playing hardball politics", I call totalitarianism. I'm not willing to support candidates who are willing to play that kind of game.
It is immoral. Morality matters.
I notice Allen, that you have stopped talking about what's in that "horrible bill". You've stopped mentioning what the Military Commissions Act does to America.
Why is that, Allen? Why do you now just refer to it as "the horrible bill"?
Don't forget what's in that new law, because it gives the President of the United States extreme powers that the President has never possessed before. The details matter.
It's not just a "horrible bill". It's the end of the United States of America as we have known it.
Allen, I am stuck in a rut. Absolutely. It's the rut of believing that freedom matters. It's the rut of believing that freedom matters more than the Democratic Party winning another seat in Congress.
Consider this, Allen: The Democrats getting the majority in Congress does not depend on Michael Arcuri winning this election.
Michael Arcuri could lose this election, and the Democratic Party can still win the majority. The Democratic Party would be the better off for it. That's the bigger picture that I have in mind.
I intend to stay in this rut until one of two things happen: Michael Arcuri admits that he was wrong, or the election is over.
I'm not going to let up on this, Allen, because it matters.
And, although you're a long time reader, you need to understand that I'm not just writing this for you.
Part of my strategy is to get the word out about Michael Arcuri's support for the Military Commissions Act, and what that means, to new readers.
Now that we're just a few weeks away from Election Day, all kinds of people are reading this blog for the first time - I intend for one of the first things that people find out about Michael Arcuri when they search online to be that he voted for the Military Commissions Act.
That's one of the reasons I'm sticking with this story. In the blogosphere, an old article fades away quite quickly. New articles are necessary to replace the old ones. It's a dynamic inherent to the medium.
Post a Comment