I'm regularly told that I'm not allowed to question the patriotism of Democrats -- even when they support policies that endanger our national security, parrot enemy propaganda during time of war, or conspire with America's enemies to influence American elections. After all, I'm told, the GOP does not have the monopoly on love of country -- and that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Now, however, the failure of Republican legislators to support legislation being rammed through by the Democrats who lead the Senate is described as unpatriotic by leading Democrats without a word of protest by the media or GOP leaders.

Consider these two statements, both made in the wake of the defeat of the Big Three bailout.

First, Congressman John Dingell.

“Last night, some Southern Senators kicked American workers in the gut,” Dingell said in a statement released by his office. “Let’s be clear about what happened in the Senate: Senators from states where the international automakers do considerable business unpatriotically blocked a bill that was supported by the White House, that passed the House with a bipartisan majority, and that had the support of 52 Senators.”

And then Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

"It is unacceptable for this un-American, frankly, behavior of these U.S. senators to cause this country to go from a recession into a depression," Granholm said during a radio interview Friday morning.

Notice, if you will, that failure to support the bill is not presented as a disagreement on principle, a policy difference, or even simply wrong. The Democrats have gone right to the patriotism of those who dare to disagree with their proposal to give another bailout to big business without giving a bit of relief to the average taxpayer. Now that they have seized power at the polls, dissent cannot be permitted, and dissenters have to be clearly labeled as the enemy of all decent Americans.

Oh, and let me make a little side note about Dingell. Could it be that his vote on the bailout bill, and his criticism of those who opposed it, is less about the needs of the country and more about the need of his stock portfolio?

[N]obodyÂ’s been a bigger advocate for Motor City interests than Dingell. And for him, the stakes arenÂ’t just political, theyÂ’re personal.

“There’s an actual conflict,” said Ryan Alexander of the nonprofit group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “His personal financial health, you know, the wealth of his family is tied up in the car industry.”

DingellÂ’s wife Debbie once worked as a lobbyist for GM.

When she married the congressman, she became a senior GM executive at an undisclosed salary. And we found the couple has extensive GM assets.

DingellÂ’s current financial disclosure filed in May lists GM stock worth up to $350,000, options worth up to $1 million more, and a GM pension fund. In 2000, among the DingellsÂ’ GM assets were stock options worth up to $5 million.

And in 1998, the congressman reported selling GM stock options worth up to $1 million dollars.

If Dingell were a Republican, I'm sure folks would accuse him of having a major conflict of interest. After all, a GM bankruptcy would certainly lead to sever financial losses for him and his wife. But since he has a D after his name, I suspect that the conflict of interest will be ignored and he will be permitted o cast aspersions on the patriotism of political dissenters.

Frankly, I'd love to see Granholm's disclosure forms as well. I know what I think we would find there, and it would certainly call into question whether her words were based upon the best interests of the country or the best interests of her personal finances.

H/T The Next Right

Posted by: Greg at 03:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 4 kb.