Roving maniacs

[Thomas Veil]

Surprise, surprise. Congressional Republicans and the White House are circling the wagons (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/24/rove.speech.ap/index.html?section=cnn_allpolitics) and defending Chief Propagandist Karl Rove for Rove's comments about liberals being soft on terrorism.

Last Wednesday, Rove said:

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."...whereas conservatives geared themselves up for war.

Predictably, Rove's remark drew criticism from Democrats, many of whom called for Rove's apology or even resignation. Of course, not only is that not happening, but the White House is offering a laughable defense of Rove:

"I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out," communications director Dan Bartlett said. "It's touched a chord with these Democrats. I'm not sure why."...

Bartlett, appearing on morning news shows Friday, said that Rove was referring in his talk to Moveon.org, a liberal group that has been identified with movie producer Michael Moore.

"It's somewhat puzzling why all these Democrats ... who responded forcefully after 9-11, who voted to support President Bush's pursuit of the war on terror, are now rallying to the defense of Moveon.org, this liberal organization who put out a petition in the days after 9/11 and said that we ought not use military force in responding to 9/11," Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show. "That is who Karl Rove cited in that speech ... There is no need to apologize."In point of fact, Rove did mention Moveon.org in his speech, continuing:

"Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9-11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times. It was a petition that 'implored the powers that be' to 'use moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States.'" Of course, the point here is obfuscation. One trick is to associate Moveon.org with 9-11peace.org. In fact, the only association I've been able to find between the two is a blog by some guy named Jordan Powell who claims that the organizations are linked by the same organizers, although he doesn't offer any proof.

Also, if you go to 911peace.org (http://911peace.org/)'s site, you will see that what they are only advocating reasoned reaction to 9/11, as opposed to blind anti-Arab prejudice.

All of this is, obviously, aside from the tactic of implying that this means that all liberals are wishy-washy when it comes to terrorism.

We really need a rapidly-spinning smiley to denote White House propaganda.

[Thomas Veil]

...like this:

http://users.adelphia.net/~tjveil/images/Spin.gif

[solvs]

This isn't exactly an administration that knows how to apologize. Pretty much all he can do is backtrack. Funny that they tried to nail Dean for saying what we're all thinking about Neocons and how they go after the religious vote (then do the exact opposite of what Christianity stands for), but saying Dems are soft on terrorism is ok, I guess. :rolleyes: I seem to remember most of them jumping on the Iraq bandwagon just like everyone else. Notable exception being Dean, of course. Saying we have to keep our heads and not let our anger get the better of us during that time of crisis doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me. Especially considering how bad we've been doing in Iraq.

And I don't remember anybody having a problem with the war in Afganistan.

[kuyu]

Did Rove say Democrat or Liberal? I'm pretty sure he said liberal, which is why I can't understand what all the hub-bub's about.

Also, how is this any different than chalking up Bush's victory in November to the "religious right"? This too was an obfuscation (great word, btw). I personally know six athiests who voted for Bush.

******************

Just for fairnesses sake, here are some Dean quotes which also make blanket stereotypes about groups of people....

"He basically wants to turn over Social Security to the same kind of people who gave us Enron." All business/financial people are evil. Got it.

[Republicans are] "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party." Evil white christian clones. Got it.

"We are definitely going to do religious outreach," I'd say the above statement qualifies.


Dean's not all bad though...

"But the truth is, as an American, it's better when parties share power." This one I have to agree with.

[IJ Reilly]

Did Rove say Democrat or Liberal? I'm pretty sure he said liberal, which is why I can't understand what all the hub-bub's about.

I don't belong to any party, so how is it that I object to Rove's remark? Possibly in the way that everyone should object to a lack of truthfulness from people in power? Yeah, I think that could be it.

As for Dean's remarks, he never used the word "evil" or anything even remotely like it. He simply characterized the Republican Party as being dominated by white Christians, which statistically is a true statement (and BTW, contrary to the GOP's projected "big tent" image). I don't understand what all the hub-bub's about.

[solvs]

Did Rove say Democrat or Liberal? I'm pretty sure he said liberal, which is why I can't understand what all the hub-bub's about.
Maybe because they keep trying to turn Liberal into a dirty word.

Also, how is this any different than chalking up Bush's victory in November to the "religious right"? This too was an obfuscation (great word, btw). I personally know six athiests who voted for Bush.
And I know some Christians who voted for Kerry, doesn't change the fact that Rove and Co. went after the religious right with a vengence. Not that Kerry didn't pander a bit to them as well, but not nearly as bad as the neocons did. After Bush lost his first race to a politician who wore his Bible on his sleeve, he promised never to make the same mistake.

"He basically wants to turn over Social Security to the same kind of people who gave us Enron." All business/financial people are evil. Got it.
Who said anything about evil? It's a perfectly apt comparison to the down side of Wall Street and what could happen to "your" money.

[Republicans are] "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party." Evil white christian clones. Got it.
Again, who said evil? Generalizing, maybe... though I love the [Republicans are] part. But you have to admit, the Republican leaders are building a party of think the way we do, or you're not one of us. Fits along with the down side of religion as well. He probably shouldn't have said it, but it's not inaccurate.

"We are definitely going to do religious outreach," I'd say the above statement qualifies.
In other words, we're going to prove that we aren't all godless heathens. From what I've seen of Dean lately that isn't a soundbite, he has been saying that while the Republicans talk a lot about Christ, we're going to actually do what He taught.

Dean's not all bad though...

"But the truth is, as an American, it's better when parties share power." This one I have to agree with.
Sounds a lot like something McCain said as well. Too bad people like Bush, and to a lesser extent Kerry, are the ones who get to be the candidates. Blame the far ends of both sides for that. ;)

[kuyu]

Wow, that's a lot of quotes. I think that's a new record for me.

Anyway, I was being sarcastic with the comments after the Dean quotes, since I didn't think that those were any worse or better than Rove's comments. Get it? Guess not, or I wouldn't have been quoted ad naseum.

This forum is too darned serious. We'd have more productive discussions with a little more humor thrown in.

I don't think liberal is a dirty word because of some evil republican magic. It's the association with socialist that has "liberal" in the bad word column. As in "socialize" this and that coming from the mainstream left on a regular basis. I personally think we should socialize with socialists in a social setting, socially speaking. ;)