Tapscott On "Traitors"

Mark Tapscott seems upset that some are referring to the eight-Republicans who supported Cap and Trade legislation as traitors. I don't know that I've invoked the word and even went so far as to spell out a potential rationale for the votes, though I might not like it, or them for doing it. But the General Betrayus comparison leaves me cold. It's purely political rhetoric, however angry - and until he runs for something, comparing General Petraeus to a politician, even to the extent he might be one as a General, strikes me as more of an insult than calling any politician a traitor.

But isn't "cap and traitor" simply an acceptable rhetorical device whereas "General Betrayus" is self-evidently character assassination? "Rules for Radicals" author Saul Alinsky, President Obama's inspiration, would see both terms as illustrations of his principle of isolating opponents, discrediting them and making them objects of disgust, hatred and villification.

Comments

[North Dallas Thirty]

Um, no. Traitors, at least, usually get something of value for their betrayal, and as far as I can tell, "I wuv u 2day" from Obama still doesn't have any worth on the open market.

[rawdawgbuffalo]

cap n trade these

http://rawdawgb.blogspot.com/2009/06/cap-n-trade-these.html

[tim maguire]

Depends on what they're accused of betraying. If they are called traitors to the Republican Party, I think that's a fair and reasonable accusation. If they are being called traitors to their country like General Petraeus was then, yes, it's over the top and people should be more careful with their words.

[seekeronos]

I think they are less traitors (lovers of statist dogmas that put a "cap" on our ability to save money, and "trade" our liberty for the urgency of tyrannical energy policies) than idiots who thought they just had to hop on the latest statist bandwagon.

[Skatzbert]

A note on strategy and tactics: The Republicans who voted yes are likely in swing districts where they are very vulnerable and were probably told (behind closed doors), “go ahead and vote ‘yes’, we can kill this p-o-s in the Senate.” By the same token, Pelosi may have lost the war in order to win the battle. It’s likely that some Democrats in the same swing-district situation, may lose their next election due to their vote on this bill.

So, in sum, calling these Republicans “traitors” is not a very useful move. The Republican street needs to learn to play chess and think several moves ahead of the moment.

That said, I disagree with the Alinsky remark. The Left has been using these tactics for several decades now while Republicans have, -snif-sniff-sniff-, held themselves ‘above the fray’. Look at where that stance has gotten us.

Unless and until the Right is willing and able to adopt the Alinsky political street-fighting tactics of the Left, we will continue to lose ground and they will continue to gain it.

[Rob Crawford]

"I think they are less traitors (lovers of statist dogmas that put a "cap" on our ability to save money, and "trade" our liberty for the urgency of tyrannical energy policies) than idiots who thought they just had to hop on the latest statist bandwagon."

Any American who jumps on a statist bandwagon is, arguably, a traitor.