You use the word "obnoxious" in your editorial, and decried strident partisanship. I couldn't agree more. Why? Because, as of yesterday morning, I'd received more than 250 hate calls. They used the "f" word, death threats, threatened visits to my home -- and one threatened my child.
I joined the Mothers Opposing Bush because I want to protect my daughter from a future defined by an administration that has waged war and hampered health care and environmental concerns. I'm a sadder, wiser Mother Opposing Bush today -- and, thanks to death threats, more committed than ever.
[...]
the angry people do not just disagree with me. They have wished me harm. And wished my children harm, too. ... I've been told I am not entitled to an opinion on matters of national security or war and that I should go back to "baking cookies and driving carpools" and leave these matters "to the men we elected." ...
And when, after the column on Mothers Opposing Bush, a male caller left a virulent, two-minute voicemail threatening my daughter, I felt sick. These people are out there, gentle reader. These are your neighbors or your friends or the people next to you in the grocery store check-out line.
This is how it begins. One little step at a time. Why is the Right unwilling to denounce them?
1 comment:
Suman, this post is kind of a spoof of the attitude on teh right, whereby the ridiculous standard of people being held accountable for every crazy act or saying of even their most extreme followers. If you take a look at Tacitus recently, you'll see plenty fo examples. I admit that my sarcasm in prose comes off as all too straight sometimes...
I dont buy your assertion that teh Rightist hate is "in response" to the left. If anything its the other way around, starting with eth crusade/jihad against Clinton which really was first blood. Refer to teh Arkansas Project and the new book "Hunting of teh President" for more details on this.
Post a Comment