How Unpatriotic Can You Get?

 | 

One of the classic attacks by leftists on rightists is the assertion that people on the right typically question the patriotism of their opponents. In my experience, it is typically the leftists who resort to that particular ad hominem trope.

We have no better illustration than our current National Healer, Barack Obama. Obama, a master of the ad hominem attack, famously called Bush “unpatriotic” for running up nearly $4 trillion in national debt. (That included TARP, which was repaid by the banks with interest, early in Obama’s reign.)

Now, however, Obama has quietly requested another $1.2 trillion rise in the national debt ceiling. That would raise the current national debt to $16.4 trillion. In his three years in office, he has already added $4.6 trillion to the debt, far more than Bush did in eight years. Obama makes Bush look like a miser — no easy feat. He is increasing the national debt at an average of $4.24 billion a day, and will have added $6.2 trillion to the debt in his first (and, I hope, his last) term.

That would mean that Obama will have added more to the national debt than all the presidents preceding Bush — from Washington to Clinton — combined. To use another epithet he hurled at Bush, his spending has been nothing short of “irresponsible.”




Share This

Comments

Brian

Really, are you kidding me? Where's your yellow ribbon on your huge SUV?

One leftist decides to use the time proven successful tactict of the right. And now, all the suddend, leftists are the majority users of the "patriotic" card?

Come on. That's just about as dishonest as it gets....

Rightists have been telling everyone else for 70+ years now, that if they didn't support their wars everywhere else in the world, they should love it or leave it.
Now one leftist turns the tables on you rightists, and you cry foul....What comes around, goes around.

Gary Jason

Really, "Brian," are YOU kidding ME? This isn't the first time leftists have used the trope--remember the screams by the Kerry supporters that Bush was a "chicken-hawk" because he served, but not in Vietnam? Just google-search the term, and you will see it is a common ad hominem attack of the left.

Obviously I hit a raw nerve. Go light another candle in front of your Obama shrine, and you will feel so much better.

Best wishes--Gary

Brian

Gary, Yes, it has hit a raw nerve.

I volunteered for the US Army, and was in the first Persian Gulf war. My grandfather was drafted and fought in the US Navy in the pacific in WWII. My father was forced to join the air force, and fly B-52's in Vietnam, as an alternative to being drafted and having to the ground war in Vietnam. My brother made a carrer in the US Navy, serving 2 tours in the green zone of Baghdad, where he was mortared daily, and tried to save the lives of his fellow servicemen who were unlucky enough to be hit.

The Reagans', George the seconds', Cheneys' and Rumsfelds'of the world have a very easy task of sending others off to risk their lives. But when it comes to their own childern, or themselves, they are above that kind of thing.

Brian

First, I'm no supporter of Obama. Second, I'm no supporter of Bush. He "served"? Really? The guy used his daddies influence to stay out of the war that poor people were not able to avoid, unless they were willing to go to jail, or flee to another country. Bush served himself, not the US, or it's people.

It's pretty sad that if someone dare question the "patriotism" of the right, your first impluse is to name-call them as Obama worshipers.

Obama and Bush are the same statists. To claim there is some kind of superiority of rightist statism, over leftist statism is just pathetic.

Visitor

First, what Brian said. Second, it more important how borrowed money is spent than the amount itself. Since this was not at all covered in the article, I consider it worthless.

© Copyright 2013 Liberty Foundation. All rights reserved.



Opinions expressed in Liberty are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Liberty Foundation.

All letters to the editor are assumed to be for publication unless otherwise indicated.