Karl Rove calls it like he sees it

[revprez]

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States."

 

More here.

[Douglas]

Yes, Rove points out what I believe to be obvious and he gets shit upon by the Dems, yet Durbin points out what's not so obvious and he gets a free pass.

[revprez]

Yes, Rove points out what I believe to be obvious and he gets shit upon by the Dems, yet Durbin points out what's not so obvious and he gets a free pass.

 

Well, to be fair to Durbin he got shitted on by damn near every Dem to the right of him and was eventually forced to capitulate; Rove got full White House support. It's hard to tell 8 out of 10 Americans that they're for concentration camps, gulags and commie reeducation centers.

 

Rev Prez

[john5746]

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and said God was punishing the US for our transgressions. The Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and supported the President in a bipartisan effort to destroy the Taliban and Bin Laden.

 

This comment is equally valid. This is one reason why Washington can't get along. He truly believes that 50% of the US is wrong on every issue. "You are either with us or against us". Can't think for yourself and have both liberal and conservative views on different subjects. What an idiotic statement.

[Pangloss]

Aside from contributing to the general atmosphere of disunity, I don't see any real harm in Rove's comment, or any comparison with Durbin's outrageous remarks. A better comparison for Rove's comments would be with Howard Dean. Both Rove and Dean are paid political attack dogs, not elected politicians, and they've acted accordingly. I don't see Senator Clinton getting upset about Howard Dean for saying Republicans are the party of white men, or Richard Durbin for comparing our treatment of prisoners to the Nazis and Gulags, but she demands an apology from Carl Rove for making a silly joke about liberals? Ridiculous.

[john5746]

I agree, this apology stuff is idiotic. People need to be able to say stupid things without everyone crying about it. They still should be called on it though.

 

What really bothers me is not being able to disagree with the military. If the US invades Britan tomorrow, can we complain about it without "offending" the soldiers? They are following orders. Doesn't mean everyone needs to agree with the orders.

 

Saddam and Iraq have been compared to the Nazi's and WWII many times. Do people need to apologize for that? No. Is it inaccurate? Yes.

[revprez]

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and said God was punishing the US for our transgressions.

 

If you're going to describe someone's position, do it accurately. Falwell said:

 

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."

 

He clearly accuses liberals, in the very least in a theological sense, of aiding and abetting the terrorists, not the United States. I have no problem with that argument, but Karl Rove's is far more basic. Liberals are weak pansies who'd sooner sell out their own country than kill the enemy. And predictably the single most important 527 and arguably a key factor in Democratic general election prospects during the 2004 elections did just that.

 

 

The Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and supported the President in a bipartisan effort to destroy the Taliban and Bin Laden.

 

Which considering their behavior since demonstrates a remarkable sense of self-preservation on their part. I think the appetite to be the party of appeasement on the day your country goes to war with an enemy that hit your homeland went out of style with the Federalists.

 

This is one reason why Washington can't get along.

 

Karl Rove has revealed one of the reasons why Washington "can't get along." There is a sizable liberal minority in this country that wields a tremendous amount of power in the national Democratic party. For thirty five years this bloc has been extremely effective at undermining American security interests and just generally making a shithole out of the capital. If you're wondering why people are so shocked by Rove's comments its simply that you don't hear them often--not even on radio talk shows or anyone not to the right of Ann Coulter; its simply impolitic to actually reveal how much red-blooded Americans despise liberalism and even more so the true believers.

 

He truly believes that 50% of the US is wrong on every issue.

[

 

Since 50 percent of the country doesn't identify as liberal, how'd you come up with that number?

 

"You are either with us or against us".

 

That's right. This isn't frigging playtime in the sandbox. A large swath of conservatives feel just as Rove does, and a similarly large section of the party agrees with every word Falwell said shortly after 9/11. Its angering. Its sickening. And its probably very tiring considering how few will actually come out and say it. And on the broad points they're probably right.

 

Can't think for yourself and have both liberal and conservative views on different subjects.

 

That wouldn't be thinking for yourself, that would be operating on shallow gut reaction. I chalk it up to some defense mechanism whenever someone declares they honestly believe critical thinking includes the ability to hold two generally contradictory positions.

 

What an idiotic statement.

 

Yours, yes. Rove's, no. And simply demanding that conservatives get over forty years of liberals betraying the notion of American exceptionalism and campaigning against American defense isn't going change a damn thing.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Aside from contributing to the general atmosphere of disunity, I don't see any real harm in Rove's comment...

 

There isn't, because Rove doesn't risk anything except pissing off the Upper West Side, the Left Coast, and their ambassadors to fly over country. And few if any Republicans actually listen to Democrats anymore unless--as is in the Senate--they absolutely have to.

 

...or any comparison with Durbin's outrageous remarks.

 

Durbin, a US Senator, is now in the Congressional Record equating allegations of American mistreatment of detainees to that of Nazi, Soviet, or Khmer Rouge abuses. More importantly, he's one shrill voice in many that is willing to validate the worst propaganda of America's overseas critics and enemies in an effort to shutdown a camp that 80 percent of Americans agree is run well and run with purpose.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

What really bothers me is not being able to disagree with the military.

 

Nobody said you "couldn't disagree with the military." You just better be prepared both on the facts and the ethics before you attack Americans' most beloved (and rightly so) institution. Don't pick a fight about Malcom X in a Black neighborhood and whatnot.

 

If the US invades Britan tomorrow, can we complain about it without "offending" the soldiers?

 

If the United States invaded Britain tomorrow, I'm sure you'd here a lot of outrage long before you start complaining; including the very quick and brutal politicization of the military into minority "why the hell not?" and majority "screw this" camps.

 

They are following orders. Doesn't mean everyone needs to agree with the orders.

 

And not everyone does. But once again let's step back into reality. Who really cares what you think when the vast majority of the actives, Guard and reserve are behind the war?

 

Saddam and Iraq have been compared to the Nazi's and WWII many times.

 

Because the comparison is accurate and meaningful. Hussein's Iraq and Hitler's Germany were brutally run police states that murdered on a mass scale, invaded their neighbors, and if left unchecked would grow to dominate a region of the world vital to US security interests. Exactly what the hell do the US and Nazi Germany have in common that Richard Pyror or tens of millions of NASCAR fans don't?

 

Do people need to apologize for that? No. Is it inaccurate? Yes.

 

Durbin needed to apologize, and did, for two reasons. First, we learned this week that the Dems had lost on Gitmo; that's going to be a lovely little issue in 2006. Second, Durbin should've apologized because his comments--recorded, copied and distributed globally--may be used in misinformation campaigns by the enemy. We already have to deal with a continent of off-shore losers in Europe who chide the US by day and bully Muslims by night. Last thing we need is a US Senator making their case for them.

 

Rev Prez

[YT2095]

We already have to deal with a continent of off-shore losers in Europe who chide the US by day and bully Muslims by night.

 

I sincerely hope you`re not implying the U.K by that statement!

[Douglas]

I think the European (including the U.K.) mainstream media dishes out a heavy dose of liberalism, including anti americanism. I'm just not sure if there's an effective conservative counter balance to sources like the anti american BBC.

[Dave]

Let me point this out right now: I'm not going to tolerate people making sweeping generalisations here. That's not what this forum is all about, and I'll be damned if it continues on here.

 

If you want to continue to do so, then go elsewhere. I've just about had enough of threads being ruined on this forum.

[revprez]

I sincerely hope you`re not implying the U.K by that statement!

 

I'm specifically referring to the French.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Let me point this out right now: I'm not going to tolerate people making sweeping generalisations here. That's not what this forum is all about, and I'll be damned if it continues on here.

 

Would that include Karl Rove's remarks in your view?

 

Rev Prez

[husmusen]

Well I've just done a quick study of Rove and I'm amazed anyone would take a statement by him to heart, he seems to be a loyal Bush attack dog and campaign manager, and to be as Machiavelian as they come, hence nothing he says can readily be trusted as the probability that it is part of a deception or distortion is high.

 

After decades in politics I doubt this guy even remembers how to call it like he sees it.

 

Cheers.

[Mokele]

This entire thread, Rove's quote included, reeks of false dichotomy and hasty generalizations.

 

News Flash: There are not just two sides with no middle ground.

News Flash 2: All conservatives do not think alike, nor do all liberals.

 

This has been you daily dose of the blindingly obvious, since several people in this thread clearly need to reminded of such things.

 

Mokele

[husmusen]

Hows this for a more likely scenario.

Rather than:

I% of Americans want(and for that matter know how to) protect the

country and J% want to betray it.

I being (in some peoples eyes) Politial party 1 and J Political party 2.

 

Maybe just about every American want's to do the right thing by his country just one lot see the primary danger as being to the countries body, and the other lot to the countries soul(in this context it's core values and beliefs).

 

And indeed maybe there is a threat to both, but htey are too busy bickering to notice this.

 

Cheers.

[revprez]

News Flash: There are not just two sides with no middle ground.

 

First of all, Rove didn't say there were just two sides. He said their were liberals and their were conseratives and that generally these wto groups hold dichotomous views on issues of national security. One of these views he rightly derided. And even so, in general the middle ground is insignificant compared to the constellation of views unique to conservatism and liberalism. That's why the labels are useful.

 

News Flash 2: All conservatives do not think alike, nor do all liberals.

 

No they don't, just as all people who post in Relativity do not think alike. The point is that libertarian opponents of the Bush doctrine are so politically insignificant they barely warrant discussion. Just like the academic gravitas of people passionately railing against special relativity is so miniscule there's no reason to take them seriously.

 

Rev Prez

[-Demosthenes-]

All conservatives do not think alike, nor do all liberals

I would venture so far as to say that the think similarly, and make the same (if not very similar) basic principles.

I agree with revpres mostly, he's said most of what I would have said.

[Pangloss]

If you're wondering why people are so shocked by Rove's comments its simply that you don't hear them often--not even on radio talk shows or anyone not to the right of Ann Coulter; its simply impolitic to actually reveal how much red-blooded Americans despise liberalism and even more so the true believers.

 

Here's the thing that bothers me about this kind of sentiment: If Americans have become polarized it is in part because of paid attack dogs like these, on BOTH sides, who have come to set the agenda of American politics. It's almost as if, in this post-9/11 world, Americans have hired a new proxy to deal with politics for them -- the television demagogue!

 

Karl Rove is not an objective reporter of conservative sentiments! He's a paid, partisan, political manager, doing a job. James Carville and Howard Dean do the same thing, not "for liberals", but for the liberal side of arguments. There is no difference, and none of these people are valuable or important in any way. They do not "wake up their side to the excesses of the other side". They do not "open people's eyes to what's been going on". They only cause DAMAGE. They're ALL wrong, ALL the time. Everything they do is BAD.

 

I stand by what I said above -- Rove has nothing to apologize for when it comes to those comments. But to stand behind that kind of thing as if it's actually REASONABLE and SENSIBLE and FAIR? That is insane. What the holy heck are we doing?!

 

People need to stand up for themselves. Set their OWN agenda. Stop letting these dangerous demagogues tell us what is important and what is not. Before it's too late.

[Mokele]

First of all, Rove didn't say there were just two sides. He said their were liberals and their were conseratives and that generally these wto groups hold dichotomous views on issues of national security. One of these views he rightly derided. And even so, in general the middle ground is insignificant compared to the constellation of views unique to conservatism and liberalism. That's why the labels are useful.

 

 

I was refering to your assinine, ignorant and frankly offensive comment...

That wouldn't be thinking for yourself, that would be operating on shallow gut reaction. I chalk it up to some defense mechanism whenever someone declares they honestly believe critical thinking includes the ability to hold two generally contradictory positions.

...which was in response to the perfectly reasonable assertion that individuals can agree with conservatism on some points and liberalism on others.

 

Frankly, you arrogant and dismissive tone towards perfectly legitimate points of view renders the discussion pointless and artificially polarized. I'd like to remind you of a quote from one of the *Founding Fathers*: "Politics is the art of compromise" - Alexander Hamilton

 

However, that doesn't even begin to touch how simply *stupid* your assertion is. Tell me *precisely* why I cannot simultaneously believe that gays should marry *and* that tax cuts stimulate the economy? Tell me *precisely* what logical fallacy prevents someone from holding those two views at once?

 

Perhaps you should actually try *discussing* things, rather that committing the fallacy of false dichotomy by lumping people into diametrically opposed camps. Oh, wait, that's right, you don't want to hear anything from us liberals, no matter how valid our points may be.

 

I suggest you pull your head out of you ass, look around, and notice that the middle ground is a *LOT* more popular than you think it is.

 

Mokele

[revprez]

I was refering to your assinine, ignorant and frankly offensive comment...

 

I'm sorry you were offended. 58 percent of American self-identify as either liberal and conservative when actually asked. 99 percent of American voters in the last election voted for either Kerry or Bush. Its fair to apply the labels liberal and conservative exhaustively and exclusively to the significant players and constituencies in this game; the independents are a second order consideration.

 

I don't go around tossing folk wisdom as biology. Maybe you should stop doing the same in a discussion on politics.

 

...which was in response to the perfectly reasonable assertion that individuals can agree with conservatism on some points and liberalism on others.

 

It is a plain fact that people do hold contradictory positions. I'm sure you have at some point; and I know I have. It is not an exercise in critical thought, it is an inevitable consequence of intuition.

 

Frankly, you arrogant and dismissive tone towards perfectly legitimate points of view renders the discussion pointless and artificially polarized.

 

Your defense of shallowness and ignorance as intellectual virtue is as fatuous as it is boring. Stick to the subject at hand.

 

I'd like to remind you of a quote from one of the *Founding Fathers*: "Politics is the art of compromise" - Alexander Hamilton

 

Hamilton said or wrote no such thing, but more to the point it isn't even one of the many definitions actually used by political scientists today. Either way, your quote is non sequitur.

 

However, that doesn't even begin to touch how simply *stupid* your assertion is. Tell me *precisely* why I cannot simultaneously believe that gays should marry *and* that tax cuts stimulate the economy?

 

I never said you couldn't hold contradictory positions. I said doing so is not the consequence of critical thought.

 

Tell me *precisely* what logical fallacy prevents someone from holding those two views at once?

 

Two mutually exclusive positions, if held, amounts to simple contradiction.

 

Perhaps you should actually try *discussing* things...

 

Perhaps you should try doing a little research.

 

I suggest you pull your head out of you ass, look around, and notice that the middle ground is a *LOT* more popular than you think it is.

 

In what fantasy world do you live?

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Here's the thing that bothers me about this kind of sentiment: If Americans have become polarized it is in part because[/i'] of paid attack dogs like these, on BOTH sides, who have come to set the agenda of American politics.

 

Simply pointing out that something plays a role isn't very useful. How big a role do each of these individual attack dogs play? How powerful a voice is Ann Coulter compared to Walter Cronkite? How much political power do pundits have compared to officials on Sunday news talk? Realignment is twenty years old, and we have huge first order events like the Vietnam War, rececessions, the cutting of the upper tax bracket, the end of the Cold War, hyperwar in the Gulf twice over, and GDP growth from $2 trillion to $12 trillion in constant dollars. So exactly how big a role do you think the talkies actually play in shaping the electorate?

 

I have nothing to say about the rest of your remarks until I get an answer to this. If you really think a bunch of political junkie geeks smothering or smearing each other on TV and talk radio are the dominant political power players in the long term, then let's see the money.

 

Rev Prez

[Douglas]

Well I've just done a quick study of Rove and I'm amazed anyone would take a statement by him to heart, .

I think Rove's statements were directed to liberals in general and moveon.org in particular.

[Pangloss]

Simply pointing out that something plays a role isn't very useful.

 

Dismissing other people's opinions is what's not useful. Yet you do it here constantly.

 

How's that working out for you?

 

 

I have nothing to say about the rest of your remarks until I get an answer to this.

 

Promise?