creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Deb Saunders
Debra J. Saunders
19 Feb 2012
Occupy Oakland, Violence Optional

Occupy Oakland activists have filed a lawsuit against the city and are seeking damages. The American Civil … Read More.

16 Feb 2012
President Obama Punts on US Deficit

In February 2009 — having signed into law his $787 billion stimulus package — President Barack … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
Obama Imposes Will in Contraception Compromise

From San Francisco, where I live, the controversy over the White House decision to require church-affiliated … Read More.

Democrats' Quest for Balance in 2009

Share Comment

Democrats seem to have shifted their thinking on a number of issues since President Obama took the oath of office. Figure some Dems have more faith in government with a like-minded man at the helm, and besides, circumstances have changed. But also figure that some Democrats were just looking for sore spots — and their anti-Bush rhetoric was based not on principle, but raw opportunism.

When Obama picked Eric Shinseki to head the Department of Veterans Affairs, the left applauded because they liked the contrast with President George W. Bush. Shinseki was their hero because he had told Congress that the Bush administration should send "several hundred thousand" U.S. troops to Iraq in 2003. Bush, Democrats used to argue, should have listened to the generals — by which they meant Shinseki, not the other generals who suggested lower troop numbers — and put smart military strategy before politics.

Now there is a push among top military personnel to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the 68,000 planned by the end of the year.

Funny. You don't hear many Democrats demanding now that Obama put aside politics and give top brass the extra troops they say they need to succeed in Afghanistan.

Here's another difference. As The Chronicle reported Wednesday, U.S. helicopters swept into Somalia and killed al-Qaida operative Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. That's a good thing. But as of my deadline, the newspaper didn't receive a single letter to the editor complaining about U.S. imperialism, colonialism or military overreach.

Under Bush, I believe, the criticism would have been shrill. It's great to see Democrats talking about the need for civility in the Capitol — so much so that the House passed a resolution reprimanding Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., for "a breach of decorum and degraded the proceedings" when he yelled, "You lie," to Obama as the president addressed a joint session of Congress earlier this month.

You see, it is more civil when a number of lawmakers boo and heckle, as they did to Bush during his 2004 and 2005 State of the Union addresses, than for one man to shout out the president. (Just kidding — as I in no way defend Wilson's rude behavior.)

At a press conference Thursday, a teary-eyed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that she is worried that the language being used by the critics of Obama's health care plan will lead to "violence."

Here's the quote: "I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco.

This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place."

Her office explained that Pelosi was thinking of the 1978 murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk, as well as the riots that followed.

But as every San Franciscan knows, Dan White shot Moscone and Milk because Moscone would not give him his supervisor's post back and Milk supported Moscone.

Don't take my word for it. Sen. Dianne Feinstein told The Chronicle's Rachel Gordon last year: "This had nothing to do with anybody's sexual orientation. It had to do with getting back his position. Dan White was a troubled man under a lot of pressure."

So it is hysterical and disingenuous for Pelosi to equate tea-party protests with the murders of Moscone and Milk and the riots that followed. She knows better. She herself said Thursday that people should take "responsibility" for what they say and any "incitement" their words cause. She owes lawful protesters an apology.

Pelosi's performance was particularly irksome in light of the violent protests during the last administration. The worst protesters compared Bush to Hitler, hanged American soldiers in effigy, and carried signs that advocated killing Bush. Anarchists opposed to the World Trade Organization participated in a violent 2005 protest in San Francisco, where they fractured the skull of police Officer Peter Shields.

In those days, you heard the left talking about free speech more often than they cited the need for civil political discourse. In the Obama era, Pelosi is concerned, as only she can put it, that "this balance between freedom and safety is one we have to carefully balance."

As the Associated Press reported, Pelosi also said, "I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made." Some of the people hearing the message "are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume."

Hillary Rodham Clinton got all choked up when she thought she might lose the New Hampshire primary. Now Pelosi is verklempt. What goes around comes around.

E-mail Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@sfchronicle.com. To find out more about Debra J. Saunders, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am;... Just two little points... The winners in the previous election expected the losers to go along to get along just as the present winners expect... As the Clinton administration showed, those days in America are through... The left ought to play the game like the right until the whole sham, and edifice of government, crumbles... We are divided, and this division bought at great price should be made complete... The left cannot count on the right... The right counts on the left going along, as they have, giving even Lord Bush the war he craved to our ruin.... Will more troops help in Afghanistan??? Not in the least, and spreading the war beyond those borders will not work... All we do there will put off the moment of peace, and raise the price of failure... If we cannot afford health care, or fair wages, or consumer protections, or fair trade we will never be able to afford world conquest unless we deign to practice genocide... God knows that people should pick their fights... In fact, they ought to pick their battle grounds...If one chooses to fight in a slaughter house with guts, and blood and gore underfoot then they might end up as hamburger... We are not being beat there for lack of troops, but for lack of brains... We could have went back ten times for the price of staying once, and after the third time they might have recognized that we are serious... Staying there burns us for ever wanting to go back... What if we need to go back, and are burned on the idea??? Why not say that the enemy is there, but that it is his LZ, and always will be... We can only beat him when he is all in one place, and as long as we are they the enemy will remain scattered....The terrain is an enemy we cannot beat, but the brains of our leaders should be beat... They have clearly not learned the lessons of the ages in war... They should be retired to school, yellow bus and all... As for the rest of us; if we cannot get any cooperation from the other side we ought to call off the notion of this nation... We could never have been divided if we had had democracy, but plutocracy buys division and demogoguery... Will we some day look about and say: If we had only had a tyrant, a Caesar, or a Napoleon??? I think that day is not far off because re-publics are nothing without the public, and the government has lost the public no matter which party holds power...Those fools who talk of the need to protect the country when they will not even protect the people from their owners, and bankers, and exploiters have the ears of cornheads, but they have lost the people...The people have more brains, but they also suffer more ignorance and fear than our leaders, and in that fashion they are manipulated, and in turn, manipulate the course of government...It is easy enough to say: Do not be afraid... Where is the money in it???It is easy to say: Love and trust the instincts of your neighbor... Where is the money in it??? People on both sides for different reasons agree that the government does not work... But government, the manipulation of government through money or demoguery is the key to all wealth and power...Our unity has become a myth that everyone believes, but has not a bit of truth to it... We have gone our separate ways like Jacob and Jesse, the bright from the brutes....Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:08 AM
There is a difference between left-associated violence and right-associated violence. It's one of degree and audacity. The right-wingers associated with violence really do kill people, and unlike the left, they don't generally limit their involvement to the context of a demonstration like the one you refer to in San Francisco that gets out of control, is easily joined by any criminal element interested, and thereby results in injuries or property damage. The right wingers don't fool around with that kid stuff. They blow up federal buildings, they harass law abiding citizens working at and using the services of abortion clinics (and proud of it, they will tell you), and most recently they even extracted the ultimate sacrifice from Dr. Tiller. They engage in hate crimes against gays, nonwhites, and even whites when they don't like their religion or politics. They also have a fascination with guns, and not just the little ones that shoot a few rounds and have to be reloaded or the ones you go hunting with. You see, they don't just talk the talk. You can try to rewrite history all you want and I'm sure you think it was just about twinkies, but those of us who were there in those days when Harvey Milk was murdered lived with an ongoing fear lurking just below the surface at every openly gay event that violence was right around the corner, and there were more than a few who would not come out because of that very threat. Dan White did not like gays and particularly did not like Harvey Milk, the epitome of rising gay power that threatened White to the core. As for your confusion about those two terrible wars, Bush got the disrespect he did because of the ongoing conviction that just becomes stronger with time that the Iraq war was fought on an unlawful and deceitful pretext. No one criticized him for Afghanistan, except when the time came for him to abandon it for the false terror target he tried to make Iraq. The mess we have today is still the same old one he made, and it's not an easy one to clean up. Your inability to own up to supporting that terrible failure of leadership doesn't help anything except your extended stay in the Land of Denial, and I don't mean Egypt.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:40 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Debra J. Saunders
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 19 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

7 Apr 2009 The Poor Republican in the Race

27 Jul 2010 Tasing Arizona

12 Jul 2011 Harry Potter and the Wizardry of Engaging Readers