Letter CLG received regarding Michael Rectenwald's response to a correspondent who questioned our use of the terms "pResident" and "mis-ministration." Such "strident" rhetoric, the writer claimed, might actually make "Republicans of out of moderates."
Thank you for your response [Michael Rectenwald's commentary, below] to the pundit who fears our rhetoric will turn Democrats into Republicans. I wonder if he feels the same about eight years of foul-mouthed Republicans attempting to politically exterminate an ELECTED President in the most humiliating and public way possible.
Those of us who truly loath this traitor have more ammunition than they EVER had. It's the public pundits, such as himself, that try to deny us its use. That only serves this dictator wannabe, as he himself has so snottily suggested in supposed joke form.
It's NOT a joke. THEY are. But his "joke" IS the same type of supposed joke as told, say by Bush's Grandfather himself and his Nazi friends, about the Jews as they were forced into the ovens.
Feel free to forward this to him.
Michael Rectenwald's response to a correspondent who questioned our use of the terms "pResident" and "mis-ministration." Such "strident" rhetoric, the writer claimed, might actually make "Republicans of out of moderates."
I am sorry that our use of the terms "pResident" and "mis-ministration" offend you. I do not agree with your suggestion regarding their political inefficacy nor their potential to backfire. Further, I believe the possibility of alienation of the so-called moderate middle that you speak of less importance than the need to rally the left-to-liberal activists that we are accessing and motivating. The so-called moderate middle, is, in our estimation, exaggerated in its size and importance. Further, a few activists can do more than the apolitical minions.
We cannot belie the truth of the matter by being conciliatory and acquiescing to the mistaken idea that Bush is actually a legitimate president of the United States. Such conciliation with error can only be error itself. As George Jacob Holyoake, the radical 19th century artisan leader of the infidelity movement and founder of Secularism, wrote in a similar context (as against the Owenite's who preferred that "charity" be bestowed on the oppressors of the free-thought movement):
That is, this regime has proven itself to be comprised of the monsters we are characterizing them as, to be the ill-begotten, fraudulent, anti-democratic and dangerous usurpers that they are. We use whatever means we can to demonstrate this, and will never recognize Bush as the President of the United States. Like Holyoake and the uncompromising radicals of infidelity, who suffered imprisonment, fines and loss of income for merely writing what they wanted to and giving voice to atheism and free-thought, we believe that the REAL indecency, the real crimes, the real foolishness, is the kind of complacency that you appear to be advocating.
I do not know your book, Making Peace with the Sixties, but the tone of the title itself sounds mistakenly conciliatory to me. I maintain that we should NOT make peace with the sixties. The sixties should rather beckon, urge, yeah, even torture us out of the complacency and utter malaise of stupefaction that has the nation in its grip today. Like the free-thought radicals, we may lose the battles, but in the end, we intend to win the war. If not for them, many would not have had the right to speak later. Because of them, others, who acknowledged their trail-blazing efforts and trials, were able to speak. These others included Huxley, Tyndall, Darwin, et al. The sixties should not be a cause for nostalgia, nor peace, nor conciliation.
Our style is admittedly provocative, as we believe that any propagandists' style should be under such circumstances. In the past (s)election, democracy was usurped. Since then, the Bill of Rights have been eroded continually. Bush poses a threat to the entire planet. No bombast is too much under such circumstances. Likewise, I respectfully disagree with you.