Black commentator speaks of civilized language, of social justice, and a wide moral compass. So, what exactly is their problem with Carol Moseley Braun? Well, they didn't even try to misrepresent her positions on social security and trade. On the issue of health care they noted (paranthetically):
(Candidate Carol Moseley-Braun favors single-payer national health care, but reveals her barbaric side in other matters – casting doubt on the moral grounding of all her positions, as we will explain, below.)
Leaving aside for the moment the logical fallacy--for one could well argue conversely that her position on health care reveals her civilized side, casting doubt on the immoral grounding of her other positions(s)-- leaving that aside, what does bc mean?
The issue they raise against Braun is funding for the troops in Iraq. But to make their points, they resort to mischaracterizing her actual positions, to the crassest kind of isogesis, and ad hominem attack. Let's set the record straight. Braun's statement in full:
I stand with the mothers of the young men and women who are in the desert in Iraq and who, right now, are in a shooting gallery without even sufficient supplies to sustain themselves. And so it is absolutely, I think, critical that we not cut and run, that we provide our troops with what they need and that we not just blow up that country and leave it blown up. We have a responsibility. Following in on that responsibility means we will have to vote some money. The estimates vary as to what that is. Almost a year ago, I called on this president not to go into Iraq, and I called—I called on the Congress not to give him the authority to go into Iraq. And at the same time, asked the question, "Mr. President, how much is this going to cost?" He didn't answer the question then. He's not answering the question now. But I believe it's going to be important for us to come up with the money to make certain that our young men and women and our reputation as leaders in the world is not permanently destroyed by the folly of preemptive war.
Contrary to bc's assertions, Braun is not arguing anything like "Manifest Destiny," or the Bush doctrine. Nor is she saying that "demonstrations of U.S. resolve are more important than other people’s national sovereignty." bc is putting up a strawman here. Read Braun's words yourselves. She's talking about responsibility, about taking care of the troops that are suffering now from inadequate supplies, and about not leaving Iraq all blown up. That says nothing about issues of soveriegnty, and certainly not Manifest Destiny. Carol does mention our reputation in the world, but Carol has never confused that concern with demonstrations of resolve, and all that that phrase is meant to imply. On the contrary, it has been her clearly stated view that our reputation depends upon our ability to work well with others, to be trusted not just to keep our word, but to be a force for peace and justice, to bring nations together, and not have our place in the world be defined by the letting loose of wanton destruction and greed, as is happening under the current administration.
The next paragraph in this hit piece is so offensive, so offensive to reason, I hardly know what to say. BC takes a grammatical error of Ms. Braun's and spins it into a demonstration of the logic of barbarism. Hello? Who here wants to stand by that argument?
This line of argument is truly unworthy of Sharpton and Kucinich and all that they stand for. It rests on a heap of logical fallacies. To review.
What's going on here? The truth is that BC has been hostile to Braun since day one. They encouraged the conspiracy theory that Braun is a DNC stooge meant to derail Sharpton and silence Black voters. They met challenges of that assertion with scorn and stubbornness. And yet the fact of the matter is Braun has been exploring the possibility of running for over a year now, and even Sharpton, realizing the legitimacy of her aspirations, even Sharpton has disavowed such speculations. But not Cedric Mohammed of Black Commentator. He won't let it die. I'm not one to comment on all of his biases, but from the topics he chooses to discuss, it does appear that justice for women is not one of his priorities, while injustice for Braun most definitely is.
Kucitizens, Sharptonites, I appeal to you. This is not the kind of praise your candidates deserve. I can think of a dozen reasons to vote for Al Sharpton, and a dozen more to vote for Dennis Kucinich. They are both fine candidates who are bringing important progressive issues into the spotlight, and who offer valuable perspectives on the concerns of our time. They are forces of social justice.
Their rivals, however, are not barbarians. If we're going to debate issues like funding for the soldiers in Iraq, let's get beyond sound bites and statements taken out of context and twisted to mean everything but what they say. Let's be civilized about it, please.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
