The more I hear from and about Kerry and the Democrats, the more I'm persuaded to vote for Bush.

This is somewhat unfair all around--but not a terrible abuse in any case.

First, McNickle asked her about "un-American activities," not traits. It's much more than a nitpick, given the historical use of the term "un-American Activities."

Second, he is a reporter for the same newspaper that tried to claim the Clintons were murderers. Compared to the lies that the Tribune-Review has already told, saying "shove it" deserves little more than a yawn.

Saying "shove it" is one thing, but death threats and harrassing someone's family deserve a little more than a yawn.

Such conduct is not justified even if we assume for the sake of argument that their paper called the Clintons "murderers."

You're right--The people who sent in death threats are unquestionably idiots. I invite you to find any corner of politics that has been sufficiently purged of their kind.

Precisely why I agreed with the text of what Mrs. Heinz Kerry said.

The phrase "un-American Activities" conjures up the House Un-American Activities Committee from the 1950s, headed by Joseph McCarthy. It's a sticky phrase in politics, one that many people try to avoid unless they reallly mean to recall that era.

The fact that Heinz Kerry was objecting to the use of the word "activities" rather than, as widely reported, the word "un-American" is lost on the neo-cons who don't want facts to get in the way. This has become a "Sean Hannity fact," no matter how many to times you correct the neo-cons, tomorrow they'll be coming out of the box saying Heinz Kerry tried to deny she said "un-American." As far as harassment and death threats go, this has been de rigueur for anyone who challenges Bush or the neo-con gosphel for some time now. Just ask Michael Moore, Richard Clarke or any number of hapless victims who have crossed the neo-cons. It would be nice if this "editor" would show us the faxes or letters or play the voicemail recordings for us.

I don't listen to Sean Hannity and I don't know what he has to do with this, but I don't think it's logical to assert that because he says something, that makes it false. Nor does something become false because it was allegedly said by "Neocons."

Blogger Tom Maguire links to the following USA Today transcript:

*****
McNickle: (inaudible) Un-American activity? You mentioned un-American?

Heinz Kerry: No, I did not say that.

McNickle: What did you mean?

Heinz Kerry: I did not say that (pointing finger at reporter).

McNickle: Well, what did you say?

Heinz Kerry: I did not say that.

McNickle: I am just asking what did you say.

Heinz Kerry: Why are you putting those words in my mouth?

McNickle: I thought you said something about being un-American?

Heinz Kerry: No I did not say that.

Heinz Kerry turns away, then returns a few moments later.

Heinz Kerry: Are you from the Tribune-Review?

McNickle: Yes, I am.

Heinz Kerry: Of course (turns away quickly).

McNickle: Come here (tapping her on the elbow).

Heinz Kerry: (Turns back to reporter) Understandable. You said something I didn't say — now shove it!
*****
Maguire also cites the Times:

*****
Later, Mr. McNickle asked her what she had meant by "un-American activities." Mrs. Heinz Kerry replied, "I did not say `activities' or `un-American,' " and then added: "You said something I didn't say, so shove it."
*****

I have not checked these transcripts, but if they are accurate, then it appears Mrs. Heinz Kerry denied saying both "un-American" and "activity(ies)."

As to the death threat transcripts, I'd like to see them all; Moore's Clarke's and McNickle's.

The House Un-American Activities Committee existed from 1938-1975 (although in 1969 its name changed to Committee on Internal Security). Senator Joseph McCarthy did not head HUAC, but ran an equivalent committee in the Senate.

In its earlier days, the Committee's name "un-American Activities" referred primarily to Nazis; after World War II "un-American activities" became largely synonymous with Communist activism.

It certainly can be argued that the use of the term "un-American activities" in reference to Mrs. Heinz Kerry was an attempt to insinuate that she was somehow sympathetic to Communism, so I can understand why she might become indignant, and maybe she should have asked McNickle precisely what he meant.

But I still think it's fair to ask her what she meant; some people might not understand precisely what the phrase "un-American" means. (I recently used it to characterize remarks made by Jerry Falwell.)

"DNC's liberal attack machine?" Pul-Lease! Has anyone shown any evidence that the alleged harassment or death threats even took place, let alone took place as part of an organized effort by the DNC?

The fact that so many Republicans are making such a big deal of this exchange, speaks volumes about their self-confidence, and their ability to offer a relevant political debate to the voters. SO WHAT?

If there's anything more disgraceful than a bully, it's a bully who doubles as a crybaby.

I saw and heard the exchange on tape when it first aired. The reporter clearly asks "What did you mean by un-American activities?" Perhaps the news service tape I saw was better positioned than USA Today's tape recorder. It was clear to me, immediately what she was getting at. The reporter had subtley changed her quote.

Heinz Kerry says: "I didn't say that."

Imagine my surprise the next day when Hannity and the rest of the conservative Wave of Inaccuracy was putting out the message the HK was trying to deny what she said. Two letters claiming HK was caught "lying" about what she clearly said on on videotape appeared in our local newspaper and similar letters must have appeared in other cities, thereby aiding the slamming of HK. Faux News has made great use of this kind of tactic and I'm getting really tired of it. Doesn't Hannity almost nightly rave that moveon.org compared Bush to Hitler??? Moveon.org never did anything of the sort. If I say that Bush is no better than Hitler on this blog, Hannity could then report that classicalvalues.com thinks Bush is just is like Hitler. Don't neo-cons across over the Fruited Plain continue to insist that the White House never said Saddam posed an eminent threat, although there are numerous videos and transcripts showing this to be a lie?

You keep bringing up this cat Hannity, but you're asking the wrong people. Eric already told you he doesn't listen to him. The only thing I know about him I saw in a 2 minute news clip on some second-rate concert he put together. He seemed like a smug jackass.

I don't have cable and the only radio I listen to is NPR, Howard Stern, and local sports. I haven't even heard Rush Limbaugh's show in the last ten years, and frankly I don't care about talking heads.

And, oh yeah -- I'm an anarchist. Eric is a libertarian.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Rather than parroting the same thoughtless critique which explains non-leftist dissent as "neo-con" rhetoric and ideology, you should ask why people are asking the questions they're asking.

As an anarchist I have no tolerance for rule by an elitist intellectual class, and I give socialists no more leverage than anyone else. As an anrchist -- and this is where I break with other so-called anarchists -- I also recognize that the best form of federal government is one that is least involved in our lives. Unlike Proudhon and many who claim anarchism, I don't buy the lie that property is theft. And unlike Bakhunin I can see the difference between an ideal and a sustainable society. (Of course, to people who pick a political side and run headlong into battle that wouldn't make sense.)

The left inevitably inches toward totalitarianism. It's fundamental to their belief in the role of government. The right, so long as moral conservatives are kept in check, is far less objectionable.

Having said that, it's reasonable to demand the same accountability for those on the left as for those on the right. Mark Shields is allowed to use the terms 'mixed race' and 'purebred' when talking about politicians, as if they were dogs or horses, because he's a leftist. Teresa Heinz is allowed to say 'un-American' because she's John Kerry's wife.

Don't pretend that if a conservative analyst said 'purebred,' or Rick Santorum said 'un-American' ('America does not belong to Rick Santorum!') there wouldn't be hell to pay.

So who's motivated by ideology? Those of who aren't familiar with Hannity, but react honestly to events as they happen, or those of you who obsess over him in a juvenile political game of us vs. them?

ps: That was a cute touch, calling Michael Moore a "hapless victim."

pps: Be careful who you invoke with your pseudonym. It was Voltaire who said, "Les Blancs sont supérieurs à ces Nègres, comme les Nègres le sont aux singes, et comme les singes le sont aux huîtres." (Traité de métaphysique, 1735)

And much more besides. A good socialist, he.

Got me on the McCarthy stuff... Oh well, last time *I* try to do modern American history on memory. Ask me about the Enlightenment instead.