POL: Candidate accuses his opponent of wanting to "Cut and Run" during debate

[cartman]

Which isn't out of the ordinary. Except his opponent lost both of her legs after her helicopter was shot down in Iraq. Sometimes you have to just not follow the talking points, fella.

hxxp://msnbc.msn.com/id/14988252/


Democrat brings Iraq experience to poll
By Edward Luce
Updated: 8:42 p.m. ET Sept 24, 2006

During an election debate at the weekend in the outskirts of Chicago, Peter Roskam, the Republican candidate for Illinois's sixth district, trotted out the familiar line that his Democratic opponent wanted America to "cut and run" from Iraq.

His opponent, Tammy Duckworth, a former National Guard pilot who lost both her legs in Iraq last year when her helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade, was visibly angry at the exchange. "I just could not believe he would say that to me," said Ms Duckworth, who now walks on artificial legs with the help of a cane. "I have risked my life to serve my country and you cannot question my patriotism."

[Schmidty]

She needs to chill out and not focus so much on her disability. I think it's pathetic that she would use it as a political tool.

[BrianD]

I guess I'm not seeing the connection between the two paragraphs. Was this just anger that a guy said "run" to a woman with no legs?

[Honolulu_Blue]

She needs to chill out and not focus so much on her disability. I think it's pathetic that she would use it as a political tool.

What makes you think she's using her disability as a political tool?

Her quote was "I just could not believe he would say that to me. I have risked my life to serve my country and you cannot question my patriotism."

She said nothing about losing her legs or her disability. She simply made reference to her service for this country. Any vet could easily and justifibly make the same remark, disabled or not.

Do you think it's pathetic for politicians to use their status as veterans as a political tool? That's been going on since George Washington and, I think, is relevant to who a candidate is as a person and what they will be like as a political figure.

[Chief Rum]

What makes you think she's using her disability as a political tool?

Her quote was "I just could not believe he would say that to me. I have risked my life to serve my country and you cannot question my patriotism."

She said nothing about losing her legs or her disability. She simply made reference to her service for this country. Any vet could easily and justifibly make the same remark, disabled or not.

Do you think it's pathetic for politicians to use their status as veterans as a political tool? That's been going on since George Washington and, I think, is relevant to who a candidate is as a person and what they will be like as a political figure.

What I don't get is why she took it as a slight to her patriotism? It seems more like a slight to her disability. If she sees leaving Iraq in its current state as unpatriotic, maybe she should re-evaluate what she sees as patriotic. I am assuming she must have made comments supporting leaving Iraq.

[Toddzilla]

I guess I'm not seeing the connection between the two paragraphs. Was this just anger that a guy said "run" to a woman with no legs?LOL - I guess we should give the guy credit for not accusing her of wanting to "Cut and Hop." :rolleyes:

[BrianD]

What I don't get is why she took it as a slight to her patriotism? It seems more like a slight to her disability. If she sees leaving Iraq in its current state as unpatriotic, maybe she should re-evaluate what she sees as patriotic. I am assuming she must have made comments supporting leaving Iraq.

I don't think it was a slight to either. If anything it was a slight to her opinion that we should leave Iraq. I believe the advocated a phased withdrawal from Iraq, but I don't remember if the phases were determined by timelines or milestones.

[Honolulu_Blue]

What I don't get is why she took it as a slight to her patriotism? It seems more like a slight to her disability. If she sees leaving Iraq in its current state as unpatriotic, maybe she should re-evaluate what she sees as patriotic. I am assuming she must have made comments supporting leaving Iraq.

hxxp://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/

GOP wants `cut and run' label to stick
Analysts: Branding of Democrats' war policy could pay off
By Joseph Williams, Globe Staff | June 21, 2006

WASHINGTON -- It began in the 1700s as nautical shorthand for a swift retreat, a commander's order to slash his ship's anchor chain and outrace overwhelming enemy fire. Over centuries, as sailing ships gave way to ironclads, the phrase drifted to the linguistic backwater.
As Congress debated the Iraq war yesterday, Republicans bombarded Democrats at every turn with the phrase, the GOP's latest way of branding their opponents on the congressional record -- and in headlines -- as weak on defense.

``Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans," declared Bill Frist, Senate majority leader.

With Iraq looming over the upcoming midterm elections, both the GOP and the Democrats are jockeying for position, using an unpopular war to try to influence voters. But analysts say the Republicans' ability to use language to outmaneuver Democrats could transform three small words into an advantage at the ballot box.

Search for ``cut and run" in the Congressional Record, and nearly 91 entries refer to the Democrats and Iraq; the phrase was used dozens of times in just three days of floor speeches in the House and the Senate.

Enter ``cut and run" into an Internet search engine and nearly a dozen pages pop up, most linking to bloggers discussing the GOP party line.
Stephen Hess , a senior analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the phrase is the latest example of Republican mastery of political shorthand.
``Nobody uses a phrase like that in a favorable sentence," he said.

``You're never honoring a person for cutting and running. [Republicans] have got a phrase that sticks to your ribs, if you will."
So sticky, in fact, that Democrats -- who say they favor a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq -- seem hard-pressed to avoid the phrase, even when vigorously defending themselves.

``Instead of offering a blueprint for success, the Bush administration has used the Iraq debate to attack Democrats for wanting to cut and run," Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, said at a press conference yesterday. ``This amendment is not cut and run. This is about getting the president to do the job correctly, something he has failed to do."

Hess said Democratic strategists have, on occasion, come up with the right phrase for the right moment, but was hard pressed to give an example.

``The Democrats were going to wage at least part of the mid term elections on the [Republican] `culture of corruption,' a pretty good phrase," Hess said. ``The problem was twofold -- first it turns out there was corruption on both sides, so it was a little difficult to say, `Ah, that exclusively describes the Republicans.' Secondly, it turns out the American people didn't care all that much."

George Lakoff, a linguist at the University of California-Berkeley, said ``cut and run" has become an effective catch phrase.

``What it says is, `You're a coward,' and moreover it presupposes that the opposite is to stand and fight," said Lakoff, a senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank. Lakoff said Republicans have become skilled at distilling an issue to a simple phrase. ``Then they repeat it over and over until it becomes part of people's brains. The Democrats haven't learned to do that."

Voters tend to respond to a message ``that fits on a bumper sticker," Hess said. Sometimes, he added, ``You can have a good bumper sticker and a bad issue."

[Maple Leafs]

Good thread title... now this thread can be used as a general discussion for all election debates this year. Sort of like "NFL Season Thoughts".

[duckman]

Thanks for the article, HB.

[Flasch186]

i thought it was sarcasm anyways.

[Chief Rum]

hxxp://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/21/gop_wants_cut_and_run_label_to_stick/

GOP wants `cut and run' label to stick
Analysts: Branding of Democrats' war policy could pay off
By Joseph Williams, Globe Staff | June 21, 2006

WASHINGTON -- It began in the 1700s as nautical shorthand for a swift retreat, a commander's order to slash his ship's anchor chain and outrace overwhelming enemy fire. Over centuries, as sailing ships gave way to ironclads, the phrase drifted to the linguistic backwater.
As Congress debated the Iraq war yesterday, Republicans bombarded Democrats at every turn with the phrase, the GOP's latest way of branding their opponents on the congressional record -- and in headlines -- as weak on defense.

``Cutting and running is bad policy that threatens our national security and poses unacceptable risks to Americans," declared Bill Frist, Senate majority leader.

With Iraq looming over the upcoming midterm elections, both the GOP and the Democrats are jockeying for position, using an unpopular war to try to influence voters. But analysts say the Republicans' ability to use language to outmaneuver Democrats could transform three small words into an advantage at the ballot box.

Search for ``cut and run" in the Congressional Record, and nearly 91 entries refer to the Democrats and Iraq; the phrase was used dozens of times in just three days of floor speeches in the House and the Senate.

Enter ``cut and run" into an Internet search engine and nearly a dozen pages pop up, most linking to bloggers discussing the GOP party line.
Stephen Hess , a senior analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the phrase is the latest example of Republican mastery of political shorthand.
``Nobody uses a phrase like that in a favorable sentence," he said.

``You're never honoring a person for cutting and running. [Republicans] have got a phrase that sticks to your ribs, if you will."
So sticky, in fact, that Democrats -- who say they favor a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq -- seem hard-pressed to avoid the phrase, even when vigorously defending themselves.

``Instead of offering a blueprint for success, the Bush administration has used the Iraq debate to attack Democrats for wanting to cut and run," Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, said at a press conference yesterday. ``This amendment is not cut and run. This is about getting the president to do the job correctly, something he has failed to do."

Hess said Democratic strategists have, on occasion, come up with the right phrase for the right moment, but was hard pressed to give an example.

``The Democrats were going to wage at least part of the mid term elections on the [Republican] `culture of corruption,' a pretty good phrase," Hess said. ``The problem was twofold -- first it turns out there was corruption on both sides, so it was a little difficult to say, `Ah, that exclusively describes the Republicans.' Secondly, it turns out the American people didn't care all that much."

George Lakoff, a linguist at the University of California-Berkeley, said ``cut and run" has become an effective catch phrase.

``What it says is, `You're a coward,' and moreover it presupposes that the opposite is to stand and fight," said Lakoff, a senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank. Lakoff said Republicans have become skilled at distilling an issue to a simple phrase. ``Then they repeat it over and over until it becomes part of people's brains. The Democrats haven't learned to do that."

Voters tend to respond to a message ``that fits on a bumper sticker," Hess said. Sometimes, he added, ``You can have a good bumper sticker and a bad issue."

Thanks for the article, but that still doesn't answer my question of why she sees is at as an attack on her patriotism. There is nothing about a lack of patriotism connected to this phrase in this article--just that is a pejorative term Republicans have been using increasingly to denigrate the Democratic Party line on what to do with Iraq.

I don't question she has a right to be angry. I just wonder if she has a clue just what she's angry about.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Thanks for the article, but that still doesn't answer my question of why she sees is at as an attack on her patriotism. There is nothing about a lack of patriotism connected to this phrase in this article--just that is a pejorative term Republicans have been using increasingly to denigrate the Democratic Party line on what to do with Iraq.

I don't question she has a right to be angry. I just wonder if she has a clue just what she's angry about.

Patriotism can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Patriotism has connotations of self-sacrifice, implying that the individual should place the interests of the nation, and common good of its political community, above their personal and group interests. In wartime,the sacrifice may extend to their own life. In this context, patriotism is seen as an explanation for the apparent suspension of the instinct for self-preservation, which implies that no-one would voluntarily serve in a wartime army.

By throwing that "cut and run" phrase out at Duckworth, Roskam is basically implying that she's a "coward" and not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do what's best for our country. The Republicans have been calling anyone who disagrees with them "unpatriotic" since this thing began. "Cut and run" is just one of the latest incarnations.

I think the connection is pretty clear. Sure, it takes a step, but I think it's a pretty obvious one.

And for someone who hasn't been in Iraq (and may not have ever served in the armed forces), it takes a lot of fucking balls to claim that a veteran who has seen combat duty is a "coward" and isn't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do what's best for the country. Duckworth obviously thinks it's patriotic (and thus in the best interests of this country) for a withdrawal of the troops.

Roskam would have been much better served by making actual arguments rather than relying simply on calling Duckworth unpatriotic by claiming she's a "cut and run" Democrat.

[ISiddiqui]

By throwing that "cut and run" phrase out at Duckworth, Roskam is basically implying that she's a "coward" and not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do what's best for our country. The Republicans have been calling anyone who disagrees with them "unpatriotic" since this thing began. "Cut and run" is just one of the latest incarnations.

Yep, that's exactly what I thought as I read the OP. "Cut and run" is just another way of saying you aren't patriotic enough. Just another political code word.

[Chief Rum]

Patriotism can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Patriotism has connotations of self-sacrifice, implying that the individual should place the interests of the nation, and common good of its political community, above their personal and group interests. In wartime,the sacrifice may extend to their own life. In this context, patriotism is seen as an explanation for the apparent suspension of the instinct for self-preservation, which implies that no-one would voluntarily serve in a wartime army.

By throwing that "cut and run" phrase out at Duckworth, Roskam is basically implying that she's a "coward" and not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do what's best for our country. The Republicans have been calling anyone who disagrees with them "unpatriotic" since this thing began. "Cut and run" is just one of the latest incarnations.

I think the connection is pretty clear. Sure, it takes a step, but I think it's a pretty obvious one.

And for someone who hasn't been in Iraq (and may not have ever served in the armed forces), it takes a lot of fucking balls to claim that a veteran who has seen combat duty is a "coward" and isn't willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do what's best for the country. Duckworth obviously thinks it's patriotic (and thus in the best interests of this country) for a withdrawal of the troops.

Roskam would have been much better served by making actual arguments rather than relying simply on calling Duckworth unpatriotic by claiming she's a "cut and run" Democrat.

I don't think it's so obvious, and I agree it takes a step. A big one (too big).

Unpatriotism != Cowardice

I tihnk she is trying to make it a patriotism issue becuase she knows people won't question her commitment to patriotism, given she is a vet who paid such a sacrifice for her country. Basically, she's twisting Roskam's words for advantage, just like he is trying to use a damning statement to make her look bad.

[Chief Rum]

Yep, that's exactly what I thought as I read the OP. "Cut and run" is just another way of saying you aren't patriotic enough. Just another political code word.

Cut and run doesn't say unpatriotic. It says coward. And, BTW, I don't necessarily agree with that either, but that is what the perception is.

[ISiddiqui]

Cut and run doesn't say unpatriotic. It says coward. And, BTW, I don't necessarily agree with that either, but that is what the perception is.

Yeah, but to plenty of people 'coward in the War on Terror' = unpatrotic.

Basically, your cowardace against those that want to kill Americans will only help the terrorists.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't think it's so obvious, and I agree it takes a step. A big one (too big).

Unpatriotism != Cowardice

I tihnk she is trying to make it a patriotism issue becuase she knows people won't question her commitment to patriotism, given she is a vet who paid such a sacrifice for her country. Basically, she's twisting Roskam's words for advantage, just like he is trying to use a damning statement to make her look bad.

Like I said at the end and ISiddiqui noted (more succinctly might I add):

I think that meaning has been made quite clear by the Republicans. The phrase "Cut and Run" means more than just cowardice when used in the political forum. Indeed, when used by politicians in this context it's pretty clear (at least to me): "Cut and Run" = Unpatriotic

[Chief Rum]

Yeah, but to plenty of people 'coward in the War on Terror' = unpatrotic.

Basically, your cowardace against those that want to kill Americans will only help the terrorists.

Those people are ethnocentric dumbasses.

Our actions as a country on the War of Terror needs to be made with rationality, and not with emotion.

[Chief Rum]

Like I said at the end and ISiddiqui noted (more succinctly might I add):

I think that meaning has been made quite clear by the Republicans. The phrase "Cut and Run" means more than just cowardice when used in the political forum. Indeed, when used by politicians in this context it's pretty clear (at least to me): "Cut and Run" = Unpatriotic

I guess you and I disagree then because I don't see it that way at all.

[ISiddiqui]

Those people are ethnocentric dumbasses.

Our actions as a country on the War of Terror needs to be made with rationality, and not with emotion.

Heh... while I agree with you, do you really think that most Americans are making decision dealing (either directly or indirectly) with the WoT without emotion?

[Chief Rum]

Heh... while I agree with you, do you really think that most Americans are making decision dealing (either directly or indirectly) with the WoT without emotion?

I think Americans are a mix of rationality and emotion. Some use primarily one. Some use primarily the other. I am of the opinion that the ones who use the former are smarter, but, yes, I have seen that the latter often carry the day.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I guess you and I disagree then because I don't see it that way at all.

Other folks see it this way...

hxxp://www.theeagle.com/stories/080406/politics_20060804028.php

Texas Dems rally to fight 'cut-and-run' accusations
By JIM VERTUNO
Associated Press

GEORGETOWN - Stung by criticism from Republicans that they are "cut-and-run" candidates on the war in Iraq, a group of Texas Democrats running for Congress who are also military veterans pushed back Thursday.

The "Texas Fighting Dems" staged a small rally at the Sun City retirement community to support fellow Democrat Mary Beth Harrell, the wife of an Army veteran and mother of a soldier in Iraq. She is running against incumbent Republican John Carter of Round Rock in the 31st Congressional District.

With a color guard, American flags and red-white-and-blue bunting on the podium in front of a crowd about 60, the Democrats lashed out at Carter, who sent a campaign fund-raising letter to his supporters last month calling Harrell a "cut-and-run" liberal.

Although the group supports pulling out of Iraq, they bitterly resent any suggestion their position is cowardly and criticized Carter for not serving in the military.

"It's an insult," said Charlie Thompson, a retired Navy flight officer who is running for the 5th Congressional District in North Texas. "And it's despicable."

Joining the rally to support Harrell were candidates Dan Dodd, running in the 3rd District; Roger Waun in the 13th District; John Courage in the 21st District; Rick Bolanos in the 23rd District; and Ted Ankrum, running in the 10th District as an independent. All are facing GOP incumbents.

"We are tired of hearing our patriotism questioned for our opposition to the occupation of Iraq, which is draining our national resources .... while placing our troops in the middle of a civil war between sectarian factions in Iraq," Waun said.

Carter's July 6 letter to supporters says Harrell has "joined with national liberals who call for a 'cut-and-run' policy in the War on Terror."

Harrell has two sons in the Army: Joshua, 27, who is stationed in Arizona, and Robert, 30, who is in Iraq with the 4th Infantry from nearby Fort Hood. Carter met Robert on a visit to Iraq and posed for a photograph with him.

"I think it is an honor that Mrs. Harrell's son is serving his country in Iraq," said Carter's chief of staff, Richard Hudson, in a statement. He also criticized Harrell for supporting Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, one of the most outspoken critics of the war in Congress.

Carter believes immediate withdrawal from Iraq "sends the wrong message to our troops and the terrorists they are facing, and he will continue to speak out against it. There is no substitute for victory in Iraq," Hudson said.

Harrell said she supports the troops but believes President Bush's policies in the war have failed.

Although she believes the United States will have a troop presence in Iraq for a long time, she would support a large United Nations peacekeeping force that would allow most American troops to leave.

"We have a failed policy in Iraq," she said. "The only way to change it is to change the leadership that supports it."

Harrell said she has discussed her opinion with her son in Iraq, who also served in Bosnia. She described him as a professional "who does not want to leave the job half done."

The group of Democrats also supports a "Contract With Soldiers." The contract pledges to improve health care and other benefits for troops and their families and veterans and adequately fund domestic military facilities drained by the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We have to do better by our soldiers," Harrell said.

[Chief Rum]

Other folks see it this way...

hxxp://www.theeagle.com/stories/080406/politics_20060804028.php

Texas Dems rally to fight 'cut-and-run' accusations
By JIM VERTUNO
Associated Press

GEORGETOWN - Stung by criticism from Republicans that they are "cut-and-run" candidates on the war in Iraq, a group of Texas Democrats running for Congress who are also military veterans pushed back Thursday.

The "Texas Fighting Dems" staged a small rally at the Sun City retirement community to support fellow Democrat Mary Beth Harrell, the wife of an Army veteran and mother of a soldier in Iraq. She is running against incumbent Republican John Carter of Round Rock in the 31st Congressional District.

With a color guard, American flags and red-white-and-blue bunting on the podium in front of a crowd about 60, the Democrats lashed out at Carter, who sent a campaign fund-raising letter to his supporters last month calling Harrell a "cut-and-run" liberal.

Although the group supports pulling out of Iraq, they bitterly resent any suggestion their position is cowardly and criticized Carter for not serving in the military.

"It's an insult," said Charlie Thompson, a retired Navy flight officer who is running for the 5th Congressional District in North Texas. "And it's despicable."

Joining the rally to support Harrell were candidates Dan Dodd, running in the 3rd District; Roger Waun in the 13th District; John Courage in the 21st District; Rick Bolanos in the 23rd District; and Ted Ankrum, running in the 10th District as an independent. All are facing GOP incumbents.

"We are tired of hearing our patriotism questioned for our opposition to the occupation of Iraq, which is draining our national resources .... while placing our troops in the middle of a civil war between sectarian factions in Iraq," Waun said.

Carter's July 6 letter to supporters says Harrell has "joined with national liberals who call for a 'cut-and-run' policy in the War on Terror."

Harrell has two sons in the Army: Joshua, 27, who is stationed in Arizona, and Robert, 30, who is in Iraq with the 4th Infantry from nearby Fort Hood. Carter met Robert on a visit to Iraq and posed for a photograph with him.

"I think it is an honor that Mrs. Harrell's son is serving his country in Iraq," said Carter's chief of staff, Richard Hudson, in a statement. He also criticized Harrell for supporting Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, one of the most outspoken critics of the war in Congress.

Carter believes immediate withdrawal from Iraq "sends the wrong message to our troops and the terrorists they are facing, and he will continue to speak out against it. There is no substitute for victory in Iraq," Hudson said.

Harrell said she supports the troops but believes President Bush's policies in the war have failed.

Although she believes the United States will have a troop presence in Iraq for a long time, she would support a large United Nations peacekeeping force that would allow most American troops to leave.

"We have a failed policy in Iraq," she said. "The only way to change it is to change the leadership that supports it."

Harrell said she has discussed her opinion with her son in Iraq, who also served in Bosnia. She described him as a professional "who does not want to leave the job half done."

The group of Democrats also supports a "Contract With Soldiers." The contract pledges to improve health care and other benefits for troops and their families and veterans and adequately fund domestic military facilities drained by the cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"We have to do better by our soldiers," Harrell said.

Sorry, HB, you'll have to do better than that. This article actually supports my argument. Cowardly is actually directly referred to with respect to the "cut and run" comment, while patriotism isn't.

Unpatriotism is referred to with respect to opposition to occupation of Iraq, which is different than the "abandoning" of Iraq that the cut and run statement refers to.

I do agree that three years ago, when the Iraq war was most heavily debated, those opposed to the Iraq war (and its following occupation) were described by the GOP as unpatriotic. I don't think that stance has changed.

But the environment has changed a lot. In 2003, while there was a lot of doubt about the war, there was a lot more support for it and optimisim for the occupation of Iraq than there is now, after three years of domestic violence and seemingly ceaseless insurgent attacks (as well as bungled handling of all things Iraq-related by the administration since then).

I think the outrage these people you are showing have is with respect to attacks on their bravery, not their patriotism.

[ISiddiqui]

CR, I think you are misreading, as the patriotism quote says:

"We are tired of hearing our patriotism questioned for our opposition to the occupation of Iraq, which is draining our national resources .... while placing our troops in the middle of a civil war between sectarian factions in Iraq," Waun said.

They feel their patriotism is questioned when advocating leaving of Iraq, not simply the initial decision to go in. The talk about draining their national resources and placing troops in the middle of a Civil War. They are specifically saying their patriotism is questioned because they want to leave now, not because they initially opposed the war (if they did). They are mad about their patriotism being questioned because they would be refered to as those who would "Cut and run".

[Chief Rum]

CR, I think you are misreading, as the patriotism quote says:



They feel their patriotism is questioned when advocating leaving of Iraq, not simply the initial decision to go in. The talk about draining their national resources and placing troops in the middle of a Civil War. They are specifically saying their patriotism is questioned because they want to leave now, not because they initially opposed the war (if they did). They are mad about their patriotism being questioned because they would be refered to as those who would "Cut and run".

But they say they are tired of having their patriotism questioned. My impression is this is something going back quite awhile. Cut and run seems to be a tactic largely in use in the current political debates leading up to this year's elections. Unpatriotism == occupation of Iraq has been a standard line since 2003.

Sorry, I still see this as them seeing their bravery being questioned, which is what "cut and run" literally is directly referring to. You want me to take the extra step that this also questions their patriotism, and I just don't see actual evidence for that. I think the people who have been insulted are reaching for more injustice than has actually been levied against them (whether out of anger or political double talk, you decide), not that being branded a coward isn't a strong enough insult.

[ISiddiqui]

This is simply the next progression in the labeling of Dems as unpatrotic. It's trying to say that they are cowards in the WoT, which means they are being unpatriotic (by allowing America's enemies to make gains as a result of their cowardice, by not doing everything necessary and insisting that terrorists should have the same rights as Americans, etc, etc). Cowardice against the terrorists is seen as deeply unpatriotic in MANY areas of the country, especially where I am in the South.

[Chief Rum]

This is simply the next progression in the labeling of Dems as unpatrotic. It's trying to say that they are cowards in the WoT, which means they are being unpatriotic (by allowing America's enemies to make gains as a result of their cowardice, by not doing everything necessary and insisting that terrorists should have the same rights as Americans, etc, etc). Cowardice against the terrorists is seen as deeply unpatriotic in MANY areas of the country, especially where I am in the South.

I see what you both are getting it, and have seen for a while now. It just doesn't ring true to me, not in my personaly experience. There will be the morons who will equate one with the other, but I think most people can rationally differentiate between the two. Most people will know that support for leaving Iraq does not equate to a lack of patriotism, but a difference of opinion on how the country is handling its foreign affairs. We see such differences all of the time, in all aspects of life, so most people are used to this. If the patriotism end of it didn't require a leap to the next conclusion, I would more readily accept your supposition, but it does, and I think that's where a lot of people would break from your reasoning. Cowardice, however, is more direct, although it seems ridiculous to charge that against politicians here, who aren't in any danger of being gunned down by an Iraqi insurgent sniper.