Lies Told By Republican Fundraisers

From a fundraising letter sent me last month by the “College Republican National Committee”:

These [anti-war] protests are being led by liberal professors leftover from the 1960′s… the same professors who fail students for simply expressing their support of President Bush and our troops!

Not that I think that Republicans leaders are liars, but does anyone know if there is any credible evidence to support the claim that there is a pattern of many leftist professors acting in this manner?

This entry posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc.. Bookmark the permalink. 

10 Responses to Lies Told By Republican Fundraisers

  1. 1
    Richard Bellamy says:

    I don’t think I’ve ever gotten a fund-raising letter (from either party) that hasn’t had lies in it — and I get a lot of them from both (being a heavy Democratic donor is a heavily Republican zip code). Usually, they tell me that the Supreme Court is “one vote away” from reversing Rowe v. Wade (its actually two). Also, they frequently tell me that the Republicans are planning to “kill Sesame Street” by cutting public television funding (Sesame Street would be the LAST show cut.) The Republicans tell me that they are protecting me from a bible ban or a gun ban.

    Also, I frequently get letters from Senator Clinton that imply that her re-election campaign is more important that those of my Democratic Senators or Congressman in New Jersey. It isn’t. I only give to National candidates when I really care a lot (most recently, Bill Bradley).

  2. 2
    RonF says:

    How did you get on that list?

    No, I have no idea if this is a lie or not. I would like to believe that it is.

  3. 3
    farmgirl says:

    Let’s do a little math. You graduate when 18 from high school, you are undergrad until age 22, you go directly into a PHD program and 5 years later get PHD at 27. You get a job immediately at age 28 at a university. You actively encourage your students to oppose the Viet Nam war and are fired from your new job and are stuck with huge student debt you are unable to pay as you are blacklisted. Okay so lets try a tenured professor who has more leeway to take unpopular stances. You would have to be 40 or so to be tenured. Take this 40 yr old radical prof in year 1968. In 2005 said prof would be 77 years old. Just doing the math gives one major doubts of the validity of this claim.
    I went to University of Michigan during the Viet Nam war(graduated 1972). Dow Chemical who manufactered Napalm is a major financial player in Michigan as they are based in Saginaw. I had a young chemistry prof who showed us a video about Napalm and Agent Orange and their impact of the Vietnamese environment and people. It was presented as something we potential chemists/scientists needed to think about i.e. the political impact of our work. He was not a tenured prof. and was fired for this. I had other profs who were tenured who did similar things and did not lose their jobs but certainly were given a lot of flak and had to watch themselves.

  4. 4
    Richard Bellamy says:

    Assumedly, though, the charge stems from this event:

    http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/48.html

    “A Citrus College professor had compelled undergraduate students to write anti-war letters to President George W. Bush…penalizing the grades of students who dissented or refused to send the letters.”

    I don’t know how broadly you can extrapolate beyond colleges named after produce.

  5. 5
    Antigone says:

    I’d sure like to find these “liberal” professors: all of my professors are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. Maybe I have to go back to WA, seems like they have a credible claim of A liberal professor, but maybe I’m missing something (like this was a writing exercise, although if they were actually SENDING the letters it may be a bad thing).

    Or, maybe, like the stories of the liberal media, acedemia isn’t as liberal as people suggest.

  6. 6
    Ampersand says:

    The instructor (she wasn’t a professor) at Citrus claims the charges aren’t true, and the students were free to write pro-war letters if they wanted to. Although it’s not possible to know for sure, I suspect she’s lying.

  7. 7
    alex says:

    Who cares if they’re true or not? Your loyal base will get the thrill of believing they’re being persecuted and give you money, the average Republican will become a tiny bit more paranoid and a little more likely to vote for your candidate, and you, dear Ampersand–you just stood up and announced that you’re not a pig-fucker*, you’ve never been a pig-fucker, and you don’t even know any pig-fuckers.

    *Thank you, Lyndon Baines Johnson!

  8. 8
    David says:

    I know of at least one professor who was active in opposing both the Vietnam and Iraq wars — the recently deceased Serge Lang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Lang . I would be very astonished though if he ever let a student’s politics effect that student’s grades.

    More generally, you are correct — there are not very many active faculty members left who were professors 35 years ago.

  9. 9
    mythago says:

    There’s no logic behind it. The “base” on both sides is still fighting over the 60s and 70s–Boomer culture is mired in their halcyon youth, and they’re still making the some old arguments.

  10. 10
    Asher Abrams says:

    Second to Richard Bellamy (and being in the reverse situation, a strong Republican backer in Northwest Portland).

    Honestly. There are lies, damned lies, and propaganda. And then there are fundraising letters. Really, I think these things inhabit a zone of reality all their own.

    You know, these fundraising letters are probably written by hacks at PR firms, and I’d bet the same crew of failed novelists turn out letters for both the Democrats and the GOP. They all read pretty much the same, and they all read like MadLibs: “Over the years, America has been built on the values of ______ and ______. But now, a small but vocal minority of ______ would have you believe that …” blah blah blah. And blah. A lot of times I have to look at the return address to see which party has decided to insult my intelligence this time.