I’ll win this fracas, as usual!
religion blog relapsed catholic Someone posted this blog entry in the comments and I had to say something about it. Taking some comments from, say, an Angela Davis or other communist and then saying ALL Democrats are like that is bogus. For starters if all this is true in this post (below) how about naming some names, huh? How about some photos? Is that too hard? Personally, I do not believe a word of this and assume it’s part of the Karl Rove spin machine. Name names!! This is just vague nonsense. And to conclude anything such as “Karl Rove was right” is hopeless logic.
I’m starting the RINO Party after this is over and after we split up California.
“This irrational and virulent hatred radiates from elected officials to all those who elected them. I saw a T-shirt in a Palm Springs shop that said, ‘So many right-wing Christians, so few lions.'”
“Everything Rove said is absolutely true. I entertained at a 50th anniversary party for a well-known feminist leader about 10 days after 9/11. Much of the liberal elite of the Twin Cities was present. I was wearing a little flag pin that elicited considerable mockery. In a post-performance conversation with 3 prominent DFL activists, they all agreed that 1) America had it coming 2) much of the rest of the world cheered the attacks and that was not a bad thing; 3) the attack was purely a ‘criminal’ matter that required the issuing of indictments, but surely not a war, and finally and most horrifically, a direct quote, ‘At least we got rid of Barbara Olson.'”
Are you saying you don’t believe this conversation took place? Those quotes seem believable to me. I’ve seen point #1 from liberals and conservatives. I even said it myself at the time, and still agree with that. Bill Clinton said America had it coming because of slavery. Pat Robertson said it was because of abortion. It’s mostly liberals that stretch into taking position #2, and of course people were celebrating around the world. As for point #3, James Carroll recently had a column in the Boston Globe arguing that the proper response to 9/11 was to issue arrests for Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, and he lamented that the US didn’t sign the International Criminal Court Treaty.
More than a few people read my remarks and think I’m a liberal. Others say I’m a conservative crackpot. The fact is I’m a Libertarian crackpot who happens to be a Republican who was raised as a Democrat. DO I think such a conversation took place? I’m sure it has. But so what? Unless we know the specifics, it’s still folklore. Are there people who think like that. Of course. But Rove implied it was everyone but his boys. For the record I do not like the idea of “International” courts telling us what to do. And for the record I think Carvell is creepy.
I’m just sick of the political polarization going on in the world right now.
As near as I can figure, the thrust of Karl Rove’s comments was that liberals are pussies and conservatives are tough guys. Given that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove are three of the biggest chickenhawk pussies who ever lived, such an assertion strikes me as being absurd.
The post does have one suspicious item that’s not in the item you linked: This lifelong Democrat is joining the Republicans. While people did leave the Democrats for the Republicans after 9/11, this stil seems a little convenient, just like on C-SPAN and in editorial pages we keep hearing,”I’ve been a Republican all my life, but I just can’t stomach George Bush.”
So as far as you’re concerned it’s impossible for any Republican to dislike George Bush? I have run into plenty who are indeed lifelong Republicans who detest Bush and his lack of true Republican fiscal positions or for taking us to a unilateral war or making government bigger or having government interfere with the public more than before. If you’d get out more you’d find most real Republicans don’t like Bush. The problem is a lack of any alternative. It makes sense that Dems are leaving their party since this batch of BIG SPENDING Republicans are more like them. Check the deficit.
Yes it’s a generalization, but not much more so than Andrew Cuomo’s saying Democrats handled 9/11 like it was a debate over a highway bill. The call for moderations are continuing with the debate over Guantanamo. My guess is that this was a deliberate attempt by Rove to boost Bush’s poll numbers, to be rolled up with an offensive on Guantanamo for the 2006 elections.
Now that Karl Rove has stepped out of the shadows and opened his big fat bigoted mouth he has effectively put himself in the crosshairs and can no longer be considered an effective strategist for the Republicians.
Even James Carville was smart enough not to poke his head out like this when he was running the Democratic Party strategy.
What an idiot!
I think Americans are growing VERY weary of neo-cons like Mr. Rove. Their constant warping of reality to fit their current policy goals and the mind-numbingly stupid suggestion that anyone who disagrees with the Bush administration are nothing but tender-hearted pussies.
We’ll see what the those tender-hearted pussies have to say on a couple of years.
Um, when Carville was running Democrat strategy, he was saying things like drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park…
I was actually going the other way. All these commenters try to add a little extra. I don’t remember the details, but one letter to the editor published in the New York Times was tracked down, and it was found to be a fairly liberal Democrat. Of course, lots of people left the Republicans because of Bush. Indeed Kerry would have won, if it weren’t for his global test comments sending them back essentially along the lines fo what Karl Rove said. Republicans are the party of war and Democrats are the party of lawyers. Lots of people hated the first part, but not all were willing to go for the second.
Kerry lost for two reasons – One he didn’t want it bad enough. Two – he let Bush call him a coward through his operatives in the “Swift boat vets for egregious lies” group.
I stopped believing in Kerry when he let #2 happen.
As an aside – you do know that none of the neo-con upper ranks ever served their country – ie. Bush – Cheney – Delay – Rove.
Opps I’m sorry Bush was in the Texas guard – keeping the country safe one cocaine snort and one skirt at a time.
I truly believe that most of the voting public (conservative and liberal alike) does not like President Bush’s policies and actions, but these same voters understand that any action is preferable to no action or ineffective policies.The Democrat leadership has failed to propose any alternative plan to handle our situation in the Middle East that the American public can rally around. The American public does want an alternative solution and one that impacts them the least in lives and in the pocketbook. But most of all, American’s do not want to be seen as passive by the rest of the world. This really is a liberal vs. conservative idealism and many people are finding that they are having to reconsider their political affiliations for the first time. This could be a time of great opportunity for the Democrats. Instead they will squander this chance and concentrate instead on tearing down their opponents. Meanwhile, the Republicans (right or wrong) are acting. Karl Rove’s statements ruffled some feathers…but they were indeed correct!
So now the National Guard doesn’t count as service? I’m sure the people in the national guard right now love to hear that. The reason the Guard wasn’t in Vietnam was because LBJ found it politically easier to use a draft that gets a few people per town than a callup that gets the whole town. Bush was legally at risk of going to Vietnam at any time, though with all the connected people like himself it was very unlikely. As for all these other Republicans not going, that doesn’t seem to bother the people who are serving, though that might be why the current leaders are acting more like idealistic Democrats along th elines of Wilson or Clinton in Kosovo.
I assume you are now saying all liberals are passive? That VC that Kerry waxed personally would disagree I think.
I will add that LBJ and FDR were both democrats, neither passive.
I KNOW Bush isn’t passive – after all he’s waxed so many evil lines of concaine personally to prove it.
Saying that the Democrats had no policies and saying they wanted to “counsel” and “forgive” the terrorists, such as Rove said, are two very different things. I completely agree on the former and I agree that they lost a great opportunity. But to call all liberals and all democrats and liberals cowards – come on!
You can call them crappy leaders all you want – but not cowards until you have real proof.
This is just like the “don’t elect Democrats or you will have fags getting married” BS rove pulled to get the religious right to vote for Bush.
I was for Bush when he went into Afghanistan. I believe it was the exact right thing to do. Iraq however is complete screw-up fought for the wrong reasons. Now that most Americans (60% +) now realize this – Rove is doing what he does best – change the subject from vital debate to ridiculous BS just to cover Bush and lie.
Rove didn’t say counsel and forgive, he said understanding and therapy, issuing indictments. The Clinton Administration did in fact issue indictments against Osama Bin Laden in response to previous terror attacks, and Sen. Patty Murray was one Senator who talking about understanding when she talked about how Bin Laden was building hospitals and day care centers.
My hope is that the tenor of our national discourse will continue to evolve. From “Father Knows Best”, to “All the Presidents Men”, to “Fair and Balanced”, to something better. Maybe the next fad will be a backlash against stubborn partisanship towards discourse and argument with actual content.
If only logic (logos) held more sway over our imperfect minds than credibility (ethos) and emotion (pathos).
Of course there has always been substantive debate going on, hiding in plain sight. Like Brooks and Friedman at NYT, IMHO.