Editorial: If you don't side with Feeney, you must be un-American?

14 Apr 2008 // I was caught off guard when Tom Feeney first suggested I wasn't a patriotic American.

He suggested I didn't support our troops enough either.

It was all so strange -- because all I had really called to discuss was why he spent more than $3,000 in tax money on a mailing that looked more like campaign flier.

Yet, suddenly, we weren't talking about the mailer. Not really, anyway. Suddenly, the discussion had turned into a litmus test on patriotism.

"It's about whether or not we're going to support our men and women in uniform," he said.

Huh? I thought this was about whether you were trying to use public money to get yourself re-elected.

I was flunking the test.

But we'll get to that in a minute. Let's first talk about the mailing itself.

It looked awfully important. In fact, it was labeled as such: "TOM FEENEY'S IMPORTANT UPDATE for MILITARY FAMILIES."

But any families expecting overdue news about better body armor or health care would be disappointed.

This letter was about a vote taken by the Berkeley City Council -- a city more than 2,000 miles from the congressional district that the Oviedo Republican represents.

Feeney wanted to express his "outrage" at the Berkeley City Council for voting to ask the Marines to close up their recruitment office and encouraging activists to protest the recruiters, which they described as "unwanted and uninvited."

The vote was primarily ceremonial -- and hardly a surprise. This was uberliberal Berkeley, after all. And while most Americans would probably disagree with what the council did, the vote didn't amount to much real action. The Berkeley mayor even apologized afterward.

Outside of the echo chamber that is talk radio, the story barely registered on the nation's radar.

But talk radio did play it up. So did the conservative Web sites. It stirred up the predictable fervor in those circles. And Feeney saw a chance to crow about his love for the military and the troops.

So he used $3,113 of your tax dollars to put together this letter -- certainly not an exorbitant amount in the scheme of congressional spending. But enough to buy something such as Interceptor body armor for a couple of soldiers.

"I am shocked and outraged with the city of Berkeley," Feeney proclaimed in the piece. "This treatment is unacceptable and will not go without consequence . . . It is time for those of us in Congress to stand up and say enough!"

Feeney's proposed solution: Strip the city of federal funding. Yes, in response to a vote by a handful of council members, Feeney wanted to deprive taxpaying Americans throughout the city of federal money they were otherwise slated to get -- some of it for lunches in public schools.

Even he admits the proposal has virtually no chance of passing. But Feeney wanted everyone to know just how much he loved the military.

Well, not everyone.

Feeney, you see, didn't send this mailing to all of his constituents.

Instead, he precisely targeted 5,101 military families -- families he presumed would be thrilled to hear his Berkeley-bashing, especially during an election year when he's facing tough competition.

Feeney deserves credit for being candid about how much he spent and who received the letter.

Of course, he says the spending was completely justified. He said someone needed to take a stand.

But shouldn't the residents of Berkeley be the ones to take that stand?

"The morale of our troops is a congressional priority," he responded.

But there are hundreds of ways to support our troops -- giving them adequate equipment for battle, providing them with the services they need after the war, honoring them at ceremonies . . . keeping them alive. This doesn't seem like any of those things. This seems like a way to spend public money to troll for votes in a very targeted manner.

No, he said. "There is nothing more important to patriotic Americans."

That's when the conversation jumped the tracks.

So if I think your mailer wasn't a good use of public money, I'm not a patriot?

"You apparently don't have the same respect for the people who are fighting and dying for this country," came the response.

A strange thing happens when someone accuses you of not being a patriot.

At first, I panicked. Rapid-fire and sometimes nonsensical thoughts shot through my mind: But I teach Sunday school. . . . My wife has worked for Veterans Affairs for 10 years. . . . I like red meat, domestic beer and Lee Greenwood.

But then, I took a breath. We weren't talking about me. We were talking about how Tom Feeney spent taxpayer money.

Feeney had resorted to pulling one of the cheapest tricks in the book -- trying to set up a bogus argument in which there were only two sides, his and the un-American one.

And frankly, I think this country's founding fathers would be appalled to hear supposed leaders of this nation trying to wield patriotism as a weapon when they run out of legitimate things to say.

That, sir, is un-American.

For years, I respected Tom Feeney.

We often disagreed on issues. But I always believed his positions were strongly held convictions.

When the FBI started asking questions about the trip to Scotland he took, paid for by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, I even departed from the pack in writing that I expected him to be cleared of pay-for-play cronyism. (The Justice Department has yet to say whether it agrees.)

But now, he was sounding like any other McPolitician or pundit who fills the airwaves with divisive talk meant to distract from the issue at hand.

Maybe this is the real Tom Feeney.

Or maybe this is scared Tom Feeney -- a man who now carries political baggage and finally has a serious opponent who could effectively use it against him.

Author Samuel Johnson once said: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

I'm not sure Feeney's a scoundrel. But he does seem to be desperate for a refuge.

I'm not the only one who thinks so. One of those who received Feeney's letter was 76-year-old Nancy Blue, a part-time resident of New Smyrna Beach who recalled thinking: "Why is he sending me this?"

"Does he not know what Berkeley is like?" she asked. "Does he not have enough to do and better places to spend his money? It seems like he would have enough here in Florida to keep him busy."

Blue, by the way, is married to a former Navy man. Her husband was stationed in Japan in the mid-'50s. So, needless to say, she appreciates the concept of service to this country.

At least I thought she did. But now that I know that she, too, considered this mailing to be purely political and a waste of taxpayer money, maybe Feeney would have us believe she's not really so patriotic, either.