Is it unpatriotic to criticize a sitting President no matter what he does?

So I’m reading Walter Scott’s “Personality Parade” in this Sunday paper's “Parade Magazine” insert. If you aren’t familiar with it, people write in questions about celebrities and Scott provides answers. So one of the questions is about the Dixie chicks:

<snip>
Q. Have the Dixie Chicks lived down the controversy over their bashing of President Bush? ( I’m leaving out the name and city of the writer.)

A. It depends on what part of the country you’re talking about. In certain sections the trio is as popular as ever. But in the South, where patriotic feelings run high, the Chicks still have a ways to go. (More of an answer but it didn’t include it here as it’s not important for my point.)<snip>

Okay my point is, why is it unpatriotic to criticize a President, whose actions are not in the best interest of the nation, a President who shirked his military duty and yet demands the ultimate sacrifice from our young people in the service? The implication is that those southerners who criticize the Dixie Chicks are patriotic and anyone else isn’t. I think it is unpatriotic not to criticize a President who has sold his country to the highest bidder. What do you all say?

mamy a quotes to the DipShit about dissent... start with the
founding fathers

.

But to the simpletons who listen to country music, it is. I think that is what he is trying to say.

that asshole is quite a rite winger. In fact i SAVED what he wrote about Dean's chances to be president.

purporting to be "a friend of the family." Even the wingnuts on Faux trashed him for writing it. (I forgot his real name – it is forgettable.)

I think the answer to that question lies in how one defines patriotism.

*Dissent is patriotic*
*The Greatest Sedition is Silence*

-chef-

In fact, the Chicks quoted it on TV, but it bears repeating, especially since it was a Republican who said it.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be
supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his
efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.
Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and
this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he
does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. TO ANNOUNCE THAT THERE MUST BE NO CRITICISM OF THE PRESIDENT, OR THAT WE ARE TO STAND BY THE PRESIDENT, RIGHT OR WRONG, IS NOT ONLY UNPATRIOTIC AND SERVILE, BUT IS MORALLY TREASONABLE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell
the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Theodore Roosevelt

In fact, it did also seem to me to imply that only those living in the south have 'patriotic feelings' (whatever that actually means), and perhaps even that those who didn't run over Dixie Chick discs with a bulldozer aren't patriotic at all. But I'm oversensitized to stuff like that, these days, and I'm aware of my 'mass media allergy.'

There definitely were several ways the paragraph could have been read -- but knowing the person who writes the letters column seldom misses an opportunity to bash the Clintons (except Chelsea; for some reason, he hasn't been especially nasty to her that I've seen), and suck up to all the 'lite country' musicians and 'powers that be and their minions.' I think it's more the known slant of the column that made me think it was odd, I don't know.

I thought perhaps I'd read more into it than was intended, though just in general, I have gotten to the point with the 'Parade' insert where I read the gossip column up front and the St. Bernard dog cartoons in the back and then throw it on the recycling pile. If I don't do that right away, I sit there sipping my coffee, trying to burn enormous holes in every single iteration of *'s face with my cigarette; eventually it becomes a fire hazard and frightens the dog.

On the positive side, I noticed that they mentioned both Dean and Clark, and weren't especially unflattering to either of them. Usually, those kinds of mentions come with a sort of implied sneer -- surprised they passed up an opportunity. Someone at 'Parade' must have been on vacation for the holidays.

Parade has only been good for one thing for years: starting the fire in the wood stove. Add Reader's Digest, and you can get a really good blaze going.In some cases, the newsblank is worth more than what is printed on it.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public."
-- former president Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

If you disagree with a powerful political figure in this country, IT IS YOUR MORAL DUTY TO SAY SO, and not hide it away in shame.

The words "patriotic feelings" should be replaced with "authoritarian preferences", or perhaps "reactionary partisanship".

is just as patriotic as agreeing with the president. Some people just don't understand that.

The republicans need to realize this. I get criticized everyday by them because of me criticizing the commander in thief. It angers me a lot.

Bill Clinton was a walking target of the neo-cons for 8 years, from the start of his term (Hairgate, 1993) to the time he left office, and beyond. If anyone should have a healthy appreciation for criticizing a president, it's the republicans.

the republicans thought it was right for them to criticize Clinton, but in turn it's not alright for us Democrats to bash Dubya.

Interesting how that works...

I call them a fascist and walk away.

Duh, I thought everyone knew that.

That's more like it. "Criticize the president no matter what he does".

All future presidents should be put in stocks next to the Washington monument, the day before President's day, each year. Non-lethal means of mockery would be encouraged...

You heard all about it when a bunch of Country stations boycotted their music.

You probably haven't heard a word about how a lot of them have quietly (!) re-added Chicks songs to their playlists. Case in point: a rather large corporate-owned station in my town.

That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that a rather large Radio Corporation PROMOTES Dixie Chicks concert tours, could it? Nah, prolly just ANOTHER coincidence. Nothing to see here, move along.

:evilgrin:
dbt

Patriots have been criticizing Presidents since the days of George Washington.

We criticized the King of England. We dumped their tea in the Boston Harbor. We ignored some of their laws until we couldn't get away with it.

the all the repubs that criticized Clinton between 1992-2000 were unpatriotic...

Limbaugh based his entire career on criticizing Clinton no matter what.

Eight years+ of that windbag blaming all the ills of the world on Clinton, say one negative thing about bush though, and you're off to Gitmo!

Edit: spelling

to shut us up and intimidate us.

The whole point of that "freedom they hate us for" is that it is unpatriotic to NOT criticize a President when we don't agree with him.

Want to have some fun? Dig around and see what some of the Republicans were saying about FDR's conduct of the war. You think campaigns are dirty now?

"FDR lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it," Rep. Clare Luce said in 1944.

Here's one page that gives a hint:

http://www.msys.net/cress/ballots2/dwytough.htm

Roosevelt's "Fala" speech, where he mentions the Republican attacks on him, even during the war:

http://www.hpol.org/fdr/fala/

for future reference during the upcoming campaign. The point is FDR didn't encourage his propaganda agents to call these critics unpatriotic. That is what what Hitler's gang of thugs did. So if the jackboot fits.....?

I despise his political drivel.

then it would be unpatriotic to VOTE against a sitting president. After all, it doesn't make any sense to think you can be against him on Nov 3 and keep quiet only to vote against him the next day. And if he's thrown out of office, what do you do for the next two months when he's in the WH and the newly elected pres is waiting in the wings?

BTW - this phrase, " But in the South, where patriotic feelings run high, the Chicks still have a ways to go," could just as easily have said, " But in the South, where psuedo-patriotism runs high, the Chicks still have a ways to go."

..the bill of rights shredded, and the principles of justice and equality that were the heart of American Democracy in its conception are mocked.

That's just what the tyrants want you to think. Define "patriotism" as agreeing unquestioningly with everything they say, then hide behind the flag whenever a scandal breaks.

It was bullshit when Nixon tried it, and it's bullshit now.

then was bashed and banned? I can't think of any but maybe I am having a senior moment.

"Okay my point is, why is it unpatriotic to criticize a President"

Answer: It is NOT.