Stuck in the fringes’ tug of war: We’re the rope

Stuck in the fringes’ tug of war: We’re the rope

: I just read a longer excerpt of the Rove screed in the NY Post and here’s the real problem: He is doing precisely what he is accusing the other side of doing. He says:

Has there ever been a more revealing moment than this year. when the Democratic senator, Democrat Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans have done to prisoners in our control in Guantanamo with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot ó three of the most brutal and malevolent figures of the 20th century?

Let me put in this in really simple terms. Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Sen. Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

OK, Rove, and now your remarks are being repeated all over the world to show how we are at war with ourselves…. and not with the enemy.

And, Rove, you whine when Howard Dean calls Republicans all a bunch of white Christians (said perjoratively, which causes this white Christian a moment’s pause). Yet you turn around and call all liberals a bunch of terrorist sympathizers (which causes this liberal hawk a moment’s pause as well).

You’re both wrong. Your all wrong. You think you’re going to win at the edges because that’s the way the game is played today. But you have lost the middle.

The NY Times’ op-ed graphic illustrates the point, uh, graphically today. It shows that the number of moderates in Congress — not in the nation, mind you, but in Congress — has greatly reduced because:

The differences are attributable to the emergence of the permanent campaign, the rise of partisan news media and, most of all, changes in Congressional redistricting. The expansion in the number of ìsafeî seats in the House that began in the 1980ís has put an increased importance on primaries, which favor more ideological candidates. A number of these sharp-edged representatives have then moved to the Senate, where they have helped widen the partisan gulf we have talked about ó and now can see.

The system is as broken as the American auto and airline industries. It’s time for a political restructuring. It’s time for a revolt of the middle. Right now, the middle is simply revolted at “leaders” such as these.

  • franky

    How can you possibly think Dean’s statements and Rove’s statements are just equally bad? Get beyond this “they said something bad, and he said something bad – so I guess they’re both kind of messed up.”.
    During the Bosnia war, the Serbs continually tried to get the message out that while they were undoubtedly committing atrocities (something they couldn’t deny), the message for the media was that everyone was committing atrocities so it’s unfair to single them out. It was only the brave and independent journaliusts who would write that yes all were committing brutal acts, but there were differences of degrees.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    It’s official–
    Old and busted: Baseless Hitler comparisons
    New hotness: Groundless 9/11 references
    Godwin’s Law by any other name?

  • Luciferous

    Jeff,
    Politics exploded, just like tv (and residual media).

  • Mike

    How can you possibly think Dean’s statements and Rove’s statements are just equally bad? Get beyond this “they said something bad, and he said something bad – so I guess they’re both kind of messed up.”.
    So tell us franky, which one (or ones since there have been a number by Dean) have been worse and why? Maybe we should list the ones by Dean and the one by Rove and determine which ones are the most accurate?
    Of course that would lead to some unfortunate realizations (maybe) on your part.

  • franky

    Yeah Mike let’s do that.
    I tried unsuccessfully to find the racial/religious breakdown of the Republican Party. So in an act of generosity let’s call that one undecided (although you know damn well that what Dean says is true). Maybe we could look at elected representatives and compare the ethnic/religious breakdown of each party? sound interesting Mike?
    Now Rove’s comments. The Senate and congress all voted for action following the attacks of 9/11 with one voting against it, something that was even mentioned on Fox last night. Yes, Mike, congratulations – you’re on the wrong side of Fox. Do they give Gold medals for wingnuttery?
    So we know what Rove said was untrue and I think we can guess Dean was correct.
    That’s to leave aside how disgraceful it is to call tens of millions of Americans motivated to commit treason because they don’t agree with Rove and his bunch of crooks.
    Let me know how those realizations are sinking.

  • paladin

    At least Republican/conservative/right-wing/whatever centrists are doing something about isolating the extremists of the Republican party and have set up a community of like minded centrists on NZ Bear’s confab called Raging RINO. http://www.truthlaidbear.com/communitypage.php?community=rinos

  • http://marginalizingmorons.blogspot.com/ CaptiousNut

    Sorry Jeff,
    But by equating Rove to Dean, you are resorting to that puerile MSM tactic – the “false comparison”.
    Sure the internet is disrupting the economics of the newspapers, but their ideologies and partisan journalism is just as problematic. I would probably resume buying newspapers if it weren’t for that crap. But as it stands, I won’t so much as let anyone bring a paper into my house.
    The funniest part from that alternate universe that is the NY Times op-ed page, is when they cite the “rise of partisan news media”.
    That is a ridiculous way to spin the actual decline of “partisan” network news, CNN, and newspaper circulation.

  • Mike

    The only realization I come to after reading your post franky is that you can excuse any utterance by someone you’re in agreement with. Dean uses mischaracterizations and ad hominens to attack the Republican Party with nothing to back him up. Rove has examples of the people he is referring to and you cry foul. Truth hurts sometimes doesn’t franky.
    So we know what Rove said was untrue and I think we can guess Dean was correct.
    If you actually believe this statement you’re sad, worse than I could have imagined.
    That’s to leave aside how disgraceful it is to call tens of millions of Americans motivated to commit treason because they don’t agree with Rove and his bunch of crooks.
    I’m not sure how saying liberals wanted to indict those responsible for 9/11 and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers amounts to them being called treasonous, that’s quite a stretch, even for someone who believes that everything Dean has said is true.

  • Peter

    I don’t want to get into the middle of the “he was right — no, he was right” discussion because I am part of the middle and I think the point of the post is correct.
    I simply want to point out that Rove used the term “liberals” whereas Dean uses the term “Republicans”. I don’t liberals represent all Democrats. I also don’t Bush and Rove represent all Republicans.

  • franky

    Mike,
    It really is tiresome to argue with you like you were some third-rate mugger sitting in a police station (“just deny everything, even your name, and we’ll get through this”). I pointed out the vote for action. Proves liberals did not offer therapy. You ignored it. I invited you to join me to look at the ethnic/religious background of Republican members of congress to test Dean’s statement. You ignored it.
    You pretend to be shocked at the accusation of treason. Well would you agree that in a hypotheitcal situation where he had called liberals treasonous and desirous of our soldiers’ death then that would be beyond the pale?
    Yes?
    Now, let’s return to the speech of Rove:
    “Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”
    Motive, mike, motive. The motive was to “put our troops in greater danger”. Go ahead and now deny that constitutes treason.

  • Mike

    oooohhh, third rate mugger….good one. You really put me in my place franky. I’m aware of the vote, I’m also aware of what the folks like George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and etc. were saying after 9/11 as well.
    And please, Dean has continually mischaracterized the Republican party, time and time again. Most of his jibes are baseless and insulting, but no one cares. I laugh at them, and would never dream of calling for his resignation, because all he is doing is driving more people away from the Democrat party. Rove says something that the major mouthpieces of the Democrat Party were saying after 9/11 and you start crying for his resignation. Please franky.
    Now, let’s return to the speech of Rove:
    “Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”

    Yes, liberals would rather make outrageous comparisons of Gitmo and our troops to the horrible regimes of the past in order to bring down GWB and score political points. They don’t care how their statements will be used against us. No more need be said.

  • paladin

    As it turns out, Rove meant the MoveOn.org crowd when he said “liberals”—Democrats have rejected that label for years. In other words, Jeff had no reason to get snippy. But what else is new? We live in the age of the easily offended. Apologize or DIE! Sheesh!

  • franky

    “liberals would rather make outrageous comparisons of Gitmo and our troops to the horrible regimes of the past in order to bring down GWB and score political points.” totally off point, but good job at staying on message. You obviously want to squirm out of this but you’re not going to. The “motive” was to “put our troops in greater danger”. Not GWB, not political points. To put “our troops in greater danger”. Please now change your argument once again to justify this one.
    And don’t try to twist words that are there in plain view – he didn’t talk about democratic moutpieces but liberals in general. When you lie about these things it makes you and Rove look worse because it reveals you know exactly how bad these comments are so try to distort your way out of them.
    And as for your reference to Michael Moore (you really crack me up with your dependence on him – if Michale moore didn’t exist you would have to invent him!!!), as someone else pointed out on another thread Falwell et al blamed homosexuals for 9/11. Do you see liberals saying that that means all conservatrives blame homosexuals for 9/11? It’s called maturity.

  • franky

    I see that Rich Lowry of the Corner is gleefully reporting that the White House is “delighted” with the reaction. That’s right a massive wedge driven between Americans over a tragic day and the White House is “delighted”
    Scum. Absolute scum.

  • Right of Center

    Mr. Jarvis is wrong on this. Nothing is “broken”. The stakes are high. The rhetoric will also be loud. It is a natrual and healthy confrontation of ideas, though not pretty to look at.
    A “revolt” from the middle? I don’t know which world’s history you have been reading, but I wouldn’t hold your breath. The middle follows it doesn’t lead.
    Rove will win on this because millions of points of evidence can be brought out to support his contention and it jives with a lot of public opinion. Unlike Durban’s comments.
    Just because something doesn’t work the way Jeff would prefer doesn’t mean it’s “broken”.
    Personally, I think the polarization is good. It makes more people pay attention. We are at war (some of us think) we need everyone to pay attention.

  • Ethan

    “Mr. Jarvis is wrong on this. Nothing is “broken”. The stakes are high. The rhetoric will also be loud. It is a natrual and healthy confrontation of ideas, though not pretty to look at.
    A “revolt” from the middle? I don’t know which world’s history you have been reading, but I wouldn’t hold your breath. The middle follows it doesn’t lead.
    Rove will win on this because millions of points of evidence can be brought out to support his contention and it jives with a lot of public opinion. Unlike Durban’s comments.
    Just because something doesn’t work the way Jeff would prefer doesn’t mean it’s “broken”.
    Personally, I think the polarization is good. It makes more people pay attention. We are at war (some of us think) we need everyone to pay attention.”
    Dude. If you’re going to baselessly attack someone, and insinuate that some Americans don’t believe we’re actually at war (when it’s the right that punished Ted Koppel for reporting the names of the deceased heroes!), at least spell the Senator’s name right. It’s Durbin, not DURBAN. Dick.

  • http://www.oliverwillis.com Oliver

    Howard Dean accurately describes the overwhelmingly white, christian nature of the Republican party.
    Karl Rove says liberals are traitors.
    Jeff Jarvis throws his hands up and says its all the same thing. Sheesh.

  • Mike

    franky, who’s changing arguments? I was answering your questions about motive and so I stated what I interpreted it to be. I’m not squirming out of anything here, you have your interpretations and I have mine.
    And don’t try to twist words that are there in plain view – he didn’t talk about democratic moutpieces but liberals in general. When you lie about these things it makes you and Rove look worse because it reveals you know exactly how bad these comments are so try to distort your way out of them.
    Give me a break. Rove specifically brought up MoveOn.org in that speech and I’m sorry if I you can’t handle the fact that you have let Michael Moore define your party. That’s your problem, not mine.
    as someone else pointed out on another thread Falwell et al blamed homosexuals for 9/11. Do you see liberals saying that that means all conservatrives blame homosexuals for 9/11? It’s called maturity.
    I also didn’t see Jerry Falwell in the ex-President’s box at the Repub. Nat’l Convention either. Michael Moore was an apt example, but he wasn’t the only one, and Falwell hardly personifies the Republican Party like Moore does for the Democrats.
    Just give it up franky, Rove called you guys out. You’re outraged at the truth.

  • http://wordvirus.blogspot.com Vincent

    Amen, Jeff.
    I’m totally fed up with the extremists on both sides. Sadly, they’re all beyond discussion, often gleefully so. When the wagons aren’t being circled in blind and reflexive defense of the words of anyone who happens to be on the “right side” of things, the same standards are thrown right out the window in lieu of baseless, offensive allegations to be hurled at anyone on the “wrong side” of the political divide.
    Things are approaching a point of nearly religious zeal, where compromise is unthinkable and anyone who doesn’t agree with the tenets one happens to believe in is the enemy. Even more sadly, the people spewing this “fight them at all costs” rhetoric seemingly have an endless number of excuses which serve, apparently, to justify their words and actions — mainly to themselves and their fellow travellers.

  • franky

    “you have your interpretations and I have mine” you know your opponent has lost when they claim “well that’s my opinion” because it means all they have to defend it is their sovereign right to be wrong.
    But let’s have some fun. Explain to me how wingnuts fail to understand this speech:
    “Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”
    He didn’t say that the words were taken out of context and distorted to create more danger, it was the very “motive” to put the troops in “greater danger”. please let me hear your intepretation but try to at least reference the text – feel free to say it’s really a reference to the solution of the Da Vinci code, as that would be about as close to the truth as you’ve got so far in this thread.
    As for the reference to moveon,org, its just more of the same crap for morons. He referenced liberals with no qualifications, then mentioned moveon.org as evidence for his smear of all liberals. Again, this is how it would be said “Conservatives blamed homosexuals for 9/11. I am not joking. Jerry Falwell blamed homosexuals for 9/11″
    Do you see something dishonest in that statement?
    Yeah Mike, Jerry Falwell is a really minor figure in the Republican party. You know on the same level as some volunteer in Ohio. I mean do you not feel bad having to lie? Why is this administration so valued you to you that you lie to stop them looking bad? How many ways can you dishonor yourself in one thread?
    Remember: deny everything then claim its your opinion.

  • HH

    “Howard Dean accurately describes the overwhelmingly white, christian nature of the Republican party.
    Karl Rove says liberals are traitors.”
    And Ollie as usual spins us all blue. Ken Mehlman, Colin Powell, Condolleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, need I go on?
    And it’s amazing that Ollie now considers the far left to be “traitors.”

  • Ethan

    The question should be, CAN you go on? The GOP has made a calculated effort to install non-white folks in highly visible positions, so that when conventions roll around suburbia doesn’t have to be reminded that the GOP IS mostly white and Christian. witness JC Watts; witness Mehlman talking about how “difficult” it was to find non-white folks to sit on MSG floor.
    Dean’s statement was fact. The party is just not diverse. And after Trancedo, you guys aren’t going to be, either.

  • Ptolemy

    Unlike Clinton’s (who I voted for) appointees, Bush’s minority appointments were of people he knew, trusted and belived in. People who have shown themselves worthy of that trust. Clinton was pure quota-system. Bush can utilize minority talent and never once has to kiss the asses of Sharpton and Jackson unlike thoses fearless warriors who bowed and scrapped before Sharpton during the debates.

  • paladin

    How ironic that the commenters here mirror the leftwing/rightwing divide that Jeff mentioned. Where are the centrists? Too boring?

  • Ptolemy

    Not trying to challenge you paladin, but doesn’t moderate imply you are neutral? You don’t really care one way or the other? If you don’t care, why post/speak/vote? Not boring, just irrelevant.

  • Ethan

    “How ironic that the commenters here mirror the leftwing/rightwing divide that Jeff mentioned. Where are the centrists? Too boring?
    Posted by paladin at June 24, 2005 06:11 PM”
    The center is now the left, the right-wing is now the center, and the the far right is in power. Our ideological spectrum has shifted decidedly to the right.
    The Dems were the party of the center. Compare Clinton to Reagan or Junior. But powerlesness has reduced them–us, still–to ideological incoherency.

  • http://www.oliverwillis.com Oliver

    That you can name all the ethnic Republicans speaks volumes, Hanks.

  • http://sisu.typepad.coom Sissy Willis

    Some of us have heart-felt principles and see Karl Rove’s words as speaking truth to impotence.

  • jeremy in NYC

    The center is now the left, the right-wing is now the center, and the the far right is in power. Our ideological spectrum has shifted decidedly to the right.
    Well, I think that unintentionally illustrates what happened to the center: Nobody recognizes them at the center any more. Each side posits themselves as the moderate center, and therefore anyone who isn’t in lockstep with them must be a member of the other side and off-center.
    To the Air America/Media Matters crowd, Lieberman isn’t a “centrist”; he’s a Republican in Democrats’ clothing. To the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd, reverse is true for people like Olympia Snowe and Christie Todd Whitman. So while I think the center is still out there, I think that nobody is willing to recognize it any more. I don’t think anybody demonstrates that more than Oliver “You’re not a Democrat unless I say so” Willis, who in his new job as paid attack dog brands as a disguised right-winger Jeff, and anyone else who might (i) disagree with Oliver on any key issue, (ii) link to often to Glenn Reynolds, or (iii) becomes disgusted with idiots ono both sides.

  • http://wordvirus.blogspot.com Vincent

    He named them ALL, Oliver?
    Do you have a list of this stuff, or something?

  • franky

    Sissy,
    You were proud of that post? But thanks for the yet further insight in to the minds of wingnuttery. Vice President tells another lie (“last throes”), he is contradicted by a general who is working in Iraq. But if you ask the president about such a difference in “intepretation” and you are a gotcha journalist.
    Jesus, what hacks.

  • Monica

    I’m tired of both parties. What Durbin said was unforgivable, Dean and Rove are playing dirty, and there is no end in sight.
    A pox on both their freaking houses.

  • Linda Edwards

    Monica, don’t forget Santorum calling the Dems Nazis.

  • owl

    Oh, I love this one. Have not laughed so hard since I watched the outrage over that fake reporter Gannon. A room full of attack dogs found ONE Bush friendly reporter in their domain and they were outraged. Outraged, I tell ya!! They (the rabid attack dogs) are “real journalists” and they found a mongrel in the room.
    After 5 years of constant attacks, someone finally decided to call a spade a spade. Not true you say? Who had the petitions? Who wanted to keep treating these people to the “rule of law” and file indictments? After all, this is how the problem had been treated for the last twenty years, as they attacked us. Why the outrage? Who stays in a constant twit over the treatment of “those poor prisoners”? Not outraged over our soldiers being abused by these slimey head choppers. No. All you hear is how someone is abusing those “poor dear hearts” that just happened to be in the wrong place, plotting our demise and shooting at our nasty ole soldiers. Those degenerate American soldiers are not being nice to their “guests” who just happened to receive religous books and meals. The MSM thinks we need to see naked pictures at least 100 times to understand how truly rotten Americans are…..vs…..the headchoppers. I believe this same media and their supporters, think these “dear hearts” should be indicted. No?
    Jeff calls McCain and Gang, moderates. I call them two faced, back stabbing, power stealing wimps….when I am feeling generous. Some would call me a Liberal because I am pro-choice. Go figure. Rove spoke truth. He nailed it. Finally. Say it again.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    It’s time for a political restructuring. It’s time for a revolt of the middle.
    It’s time for the Democrats to restructure their politics. Why would Republicans restructure while they’re winning? To suit the ideals of some moderates on the Democratic side who aren’t likely to vote for them anyway?
    This illicits partisan rancor every time it’s brought up, but the current “right wing” administration is far closer to the political center than MoveOn.Org. *Far* closer. It’s true, but fringe leftists deny it in a vain attempt to characterize themselves as “mainstream” when they’re anything but.
    The fact that JJ finds himself crossing over the line and offending the Oliver Willises so often — a centrist Democrat blogger who attracts moderate conservative readers — is evidence that there is actually a lot of common ground. This common ground exists, but tends to be obscured by the fringe left’s decibel level and vitriol. And so when the papers write about the rift between the parties, they really are talking about a rift between right-of-center and fringe-left. And Democrats keep making the mistake of getting behind their fringe instead of reaching out to reasonable Republicans.
    Instead of pretending that Rove is equivalent, Democrats would do well to lock their loonies back up in the political attic, and let the adults take charge again. By pretending that Rove is simply an equivalent, Democrats doom themselves to ongoing political misfortune.
    The way to shut Rove up is for *Democrats* to stop pretending that it’s not their fringe specifically that is driving the poisoned discourse.

  • Cog

    Rove was channeling Howard Dean with that speech, but what is going on with Dick Cheney? Every statement out of his mouth for several years has proven to be grossly exagerrated or patently false. If he stayed in his bunker the next three years and didnt say a word, the critics of this administration would lose a valuable tool. Right now they can criticize any administration policy with “they said there would be rose pedals” or “the insurgency is in its last throes” or similar statements.
    But taking an objective look at the far right and left wings, there is no comparision. Read the last two weeks of Atrios/Kos headline titles, just the headlines. That will give you a clue how far off the rails the Democratic party has become. And make no mistake, they fully represent the mainstream of the party now.

  • franky

    “Why would Republicans restructure while they’re winning?”
    And that’s all there is? What is this football? Look at the rancor produced by the remarks made by Rove. Now, I think we can agree this is an unseemly sight. Yet how do you feel that according to someone I presume has good contacts in the administration (Rich Lowry) the White House is “delighted” by the split in the country? It’s that type of thinking that demands the Republican restructure.
    And as for your assertion of reasonable republicans – when you defend an administration that calls a third of the American population traitors, when you condone and joke around about torture, I think you lost your right to the word “reasonable”.

  • Eileen

    “Look at the rancor produced by the remarks made by Rove.” The very fact that Hillery demanded an apology made me laugh out loud, too, owl. For those who demanded his resignation: guffaws.
    Bah dah bah dah dah, I’m lovin’ it.
    Carsonfire re restructuring: spot on.
    Some things are just so very…priceless.
    And franky, your brand of ‘torture’ is so…tortured. Off with his head!

  • Eileen

    BTW.
    LT and Howard… Are you guys okay? Thinking of you.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Mike: you said: “Yes, liberals would rather make outrageous comparisons of Gitmo and our troops to the horrible regimes of the past in order to bring down GWB and score political points. They don’t care how their statements will be used against us. No more need be said.”
    And of course, the ‘liberals’ you demonize are some fictitious characters ‘out to get’ the administration with no care for the country or the good of its citizens. It’s so easy to construct these straw dogs, and carry on a vilification of them, but you’re dealing with real people who are every bit as conscientious as the ‘conservatives’ who are their usual opposite number.
    Please observe that it isn’t your demon ‘lefties’ shutting out the opposition in the conduct of government, or making up reasons for going to war – which incidentally is much cited in middle east press.
    And again, those soldiers out in the actual war are liberals, conservatives, and middle grounders – none of them should be accused of serving the enemy.
    Rove was appealing to the administration’s ‘base’, and ‘base’ is a pretty good description. He brings to mind the tone of the Republican convention and that was really off-key.

  • HA

    Its about time somebody spoke out. Democrats have spent the last 2 year pursuing their number one policy objective of losing the war in Iraq and it is about time sombody called them on it.
    The Democrats lost the Vietnam war. First they took us to war, and then when they no longer controlled the Presidency, they subverted it. Now they want to relive their glory days by losing in Iraq.
    Now, some will undoubtedly protest my comments. Idiots like Oliver come to mind. They’ll claim that Democrats want to win too. They’ll claim the Republicans are incompetent and that the Democrats have a better plan.
    Well, I’d love to see the NEW plan. Because the only plan I see from the Democrats is more of the same FAILED policies from the 80’s and 90’s. Gut our military services. Cancel weapons systems. Gut our intelligence services. Surrender our sovereignty to the UN. Join Kyoto and the ICC. Throw Israel to the wolves. Buy a Japanese hybrid and drive 55. Understand why they rightfully hate us. Blame America first. Pass the Global Test. Yeah, that’s how you win a war!
    Bin Laden’s plan to defeat America depends on the weakness of Democrats. He saw how Clinton crawled out of Somolia. He saw how Clinton lobbed a few million dollar cruise missiles at a few tents after acts of terrorism. He saw Clinton drop a few bombs after Saddam tried to assasinate former President Bush. He knows the chickendove Democrats don’t have the will to sustain a real fight. He promised his followers that America is a paper tiger secure in the knowledge that the Democrats are the paper. And the Democrats are willfully playing their designated role of undermining our will to fight.
    So bravo, Karl Rove! Keep speaking Truth to Sedition.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    HA: Interesting. In light of the fact that the Cheney/Powell recommendations were enacted by Senate Appropriations Committee cutting back military before 9/11, and that the first Pres. Bush left Saddam in power, concluding ‘it wasn’t worth the cost’ – does that make your republicans ‘chickendoves’ without the ‘will to sustain a real fight’? Or are your judgments based on labels of your choosing rather than actual events?

  • HA

    Uncle Oliver,
    It is revealing how you seized on Dean’s “white christian” comment when the obvious context is the war. You see, a large number blacks who don’t happen to be on George Soros’s payroll are beginning to see Democrats for what they are. A bunch of white, Marxist, elitists who cling to power by keeping people fearful, ignorant, poor, and dependent on government.
    The growing recognition of this fact in the black community is what is driving Dean’s and the Democrat’s hysteria. The Democrat’s want blacks to fear Republicans. Thus the “white christian” comment. Thus the false charges of black voter suppression. Its all bullshit and blacks are beginning to see through it. Fear-mongering won’t keep blacks on the Democrat’s marxist plantation forever.
    The Democrat’s welfare state destroys families and civil society. Real liberals – as opposed to the marxists and their paid hacks we confuse with liberals – like Pat Moynihan pointed this out decades ago. The most vulnerable are those around the margins of society where blacks were forced by slavery and Jim Crow. This is why the black family and civil society has been disproportionaly devestated by the welfare state.
    If you ever wonder why you were plucked from relative obsucurity in the blogosphere, now you know. You’re either stupid or craven enough to play your role without question.

  • HA

    Ruth,
    The difference is clear and your comment highlights it. Democrats wanted to gut miliary and intelligence services at the height of the Cold War. Republicans waited until the Cold War was over and the threat of Islamic terrorism was not manifest before agreeing on military cutbacks. And now in a post 9/11 world, the Democrats want to maintain their policy of American weakness and oppose the Republican policy of strength.
    The Democratic policy is American weakness in times of war and in times of peace. The Republican policy is American strength in times of war, and prudent reductions in times of peace.
    And yes, in hindsight, former President Bush made a huge mistake by leaving Saddam in power. At the time it was a justifiable decision. Only the accumulated evidence over the subseqent 12 years makes that clear. So, Ruth, did you learn ANYTHING between 1991 and 2003? Because if you did, you haven’t shown it.
    I thought the Democrats had learned something when Clinton pushed throught the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998. But since 2003, the Democrats have repudiated everything they said back in 1998. Democrats were willing to pay lip service to liberating Iraq in 1998 and drop a few bombs, but when somebody takes the only possible real action to fulfill the 1998 act, the Democrats revert to their characteristic weakness.
    First, they failed to oppose the resolution authorizing the use of force back in 2002. Only when the troops are actually committed and blood is shed do they come out against the war. If Democrats don’t have the courage to oppose a war BEFORE it begins, then they should shut the fuck up after starts. That is what makes them disgraced chickendoves – stuck in a quagmire of moral and intellectual rot.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    HA:
    Your use of vulgar language is beneath any response.

  • HA

    Ruth,
    Lame posturing. You just dont have a response because my argument is fully supported by facts and logic and yours isn’t.

  • Ptolemy

    There is no real split in the country. I’ll bet the people offended by Rove’s comments are a much smaller club than will be admitted here. He said exactly what many felt and talked about just one month after the attack. I swore I would never forgive the Democratic party for being (seeming?) indifferent to the attacks. When this hateful caste of dinosaurs finally dies off I could be persuaded to review that statement.
    You told Durbin haters to stop shooting the messenger. Take your own advice and give it a test run. It you feel it didn’t apply to you then you have nothing to worry about. Can your leaders be convincing though?
    It will do one thing. It will take out the righteous fury of Dean’s speeches now. He won’t stop of course but Dems can’t keep bitching about “the tone of discourse” with that freak bouncing off of seminar room walls every week.

  • franky

    http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown_Delay_Drunk.mov
    Is everyone here defending Rove’s remarks also drunk?

  • Ptolemy

    Franky, are you on autopilot? How many threads did you post that link on?
    I tried to download it from the link you sent but it didn’t play. Is it something mind blowing?

  • owl

    Not drunk Franky….just so glad someone finally had the guts to say what so many of us think.
    HA: Good point about what we have listened to for the last 2 years. Hewitt wrote to this point today. The very same old players that worked so hard for us to lose the Vietnam war, are now in positions of power. They are doing EXACTLY the same thing as they did 30 years ago. Listen to KKK crew (Kerry, Kennedy, Byrd). Exactly same. They come in and act as if they support a war. Then they decide it is so wrong and everyone connected to it is just too stupid. Oh, but they “support the troops”!! Whoopee! Sure. They are chickenhawks through and through.
    Just think what would happen if they actually DID support the war efforts….100% support. No, they spend all their energy fighting the ones that are fighting and then wonder why……oh why…..we feel hard at them. Anyone wonder why a group of old men came forward and had their say 35 years later? Many do not understand that those Swifties were not political plants. If you can not understand that those men waited 35 years to have their say……..you will never get it.
    The lessons of Vietnam are being ignored. Losing a war was not the problem at home. It was what the Kerrys….Kennedys did…..and convinced so many to follow them. It creates a situation where one side feels the other is not only not fighting beside them, but their brothers are stabbing them in the back, as they are fighting.
    Rove and everyone of the Chicken Senators need to come out and say this over and over. It is the truth about MoveOn and their collection of anti-American groups. They think we did something to deserve 9/11. I reject this. I reject that we should indict the Embassy, the first WTC, the Cole….and many, many other attackers. If you think we could have done anything to convince any of these fanatics to quit, you don’t live in the real world. Rove needs to plainly say that the UN has not prevented any of the mass murders with indictments. Why has the left fought Americans instead of the enemy for the last few years?
    And yes, just call me a Zell Miller type. I use to vote Democrat until I finally got my fill of the “indictment” crowd. Reminds one of a Restraining Order… it’s a great “little piece of paper”. Try giving one to a nutty fanatic and watch.

  • franky

    Ptolemy,
    It seemed relevant to both threads, so posted it on both. Sorry link didn’t work, but you can find on http://www.crooksandliars.com – mind-blowing? no. Humorous enough if slightly bored on a Saturday morning? yes.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Franky, Franky, Franky…
    “Why would Republicans restructure while they’re winning?”
    And that’s all there is? What is this football?

    If you win politically, that means that you’re doing a better job of appealing to the electorate. And that’s why I say the Republicans are closer to the center.
    Here, let me define the diff between the fringe and the middle a bit more graphically. A good example would be Social Security: a true extremist/fringe right winger would be opposed to Social Security on principle, and would seek to abolish it. An extremist/fringe left winger not only opposes any changes to Social Security, but would love to find ways of ever increasing the welfare state, especially if all rich people could be laid low in the process.
    These fringe right wingers have absolutely no voice in the Republican party. Most reasonable conservatives understand that a certain amount of safety nets need to be in place. This is not, as you say Franky, football. A good economy and social structure cannot be maintained by running the “football” into the deep end, past the goalpost of inflexible political philosophy. In fact, “conservative” has come to mean, in a more modern sense, not an adherence to old ways, but taking a more balanced approach to various political and economic philosophies, keeping in mind that freedoms and markets often serve people better than totalitarianism and nannyism.
    The right wingers you do see in the administration and in positions of power in the Republican party don’t want to destroy Social Security, but actually do want to reform it — for better or worse — the same way Newt Gingrich’s congress worked for welfare reform (and not the destruction of welfare), the successful reform that Clinton thankfully signed.
    Now here comes the sleight of hand on the left’s part: right wingers in power don’t *reeeeally* want to save Social Security, they’re just pretending so they can get closer to their ultimate goal of destroying/eliminating Social Security. This might be a fair charge, in that the right often charges the left with similar incrementalism, except that while you can find plenty of active liberals who voice a desire to reach an extremist goal, you won’t find a lot of conservatives who say “boy howdy, if we could just get rid of Social Security”. It is not a goal that many people share.
    Therefore, it is a silly charge. The right wingers in the current administration are working towards a *centrist goal* on Social Security, even if Democrats don’t like the proposed fixes.
    The Democratic party, on the other hand, is clearly held hostage by its fringe. So terrified of centrist inroads made by Republicans, they are bending over backwards to pander to the equivalent loons that the Republicans eschew.
    Trying to preserve a majority by ceding the center and solidifying the kook support. *This is not a winning strategy*
    And this is why I believe JJ is only half right. The Democratic party does indeed need to restructure itself and — although it would pain Republicans greatly — get rid of loudmouth dopes like Dean who are committed to getting the loony message out. Centrist Democrats need to take charge again.
    And the reason that JJ is wrong about Republicans is that since he is a Democrat, he tends to buy into a little too much of this “far right extremist administration” claptrap himself. He sees censors in the FCC and panics. But simply disagreeing with the right on some issues does not mean that the right is “extremist” overall.
    Look at the rancor produced by the remarks made by Rove. Now, I think we can agree this is an unseemly sight.
    Democrats, rancor be thy middle name. Every election cycle (election cycle? ha! 356/24/7!), you say that Republicans are racist pigs who hate women (even if they are black and female!). You say that Republicans want poor people to die and children to starve. You say the earth is a terrible place to live because of pollution approved by Republicans.
    Granted, Republicans make their own noises about Democratic shortcomings. Rove is obviously playing politics.
    But when your favored party spends so much time making the opposition sound like unprincipled bastards, don’t act like it’s suddenly something new and unprecendented to be lambasted in return! The crybabies mad about Rove besmirching their fine reputations don’t blink at “BusHitler”. And Rove has the added benefit of being a little more on target, of sounding a bit more reasonable in his critique, than the hyperventilating extremist charges from the left.
    This isn’t to say that it’s right to talk trash about the other guy. But the Democrats at this point have too much of a trade imbalance to be taken seriously on this right now.
    There is only one way that Rove and Dean are perfectly in sync: Rove makes the left look like an ass. *And so does Dean*.
    And that is the real reason why the Democratic party is angry.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    HA:
    good name for such a cheap shot artist: You use 4 letter words I won’t respond to then “Lame posturing. You just dont have a response because my argument is fully supported by facts and logic and yours isn’t.” Not worth dignifying.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Oh, Ruth, please! I don’t like vulgar language, either, but a preponderance of it is coming from the left these days.
    Comments: For the record (the companion thread to this one)
    These kind of assertions are such bullshit – Tony
    Complete and utter horseshit. – JerseyExile
    Other random comments found through Googling
    (on Jeff criticizing the anti-war left) …never have I read anything on your blog that has made me more want to tell you to go fuck yourself. – Mork
    (on the FCC) FUCK OFF jesus freaks!!!! – bw
    (on someone else criticizing terrorists) Are they [the Bush administration] getting tried for treason? No? Then shut the fuck up.
    And that’s just JJ’s relatively calm blog. You can barely enter Daily Kos, Atrios, or DemocraticUnderground before you’re swamped in a sea of obscenity unparalleled by right wing blogs and forums.
    In a weird way, your complaint here complements the Rove complaint perfectly. An eternity of building up a plurality of ugly speech, and then acting shocked and offended when your opponent gets *slightly* mean *once*. It’s embarrassing to watch.

  • franky

    Isn’t it obligatory that my comments usually get mentioned in any list of offensive posts?

  • Ptolemy

    You post enough franky. Why wouldn’t you get quoted? You’re on every thread, almost. Its free publicity! You wouldn’t post if you didn’t want to be noticed. Enjoy it while it lasts. Fame is so fickle, you know.

  • franky

    Ptolemy,
    Believe me I’m enjoying all the benefits of this fame – i sometimes feel like Tom Cruise what with me being one of the hundreds of posters on one of the world’s millions of blogs.
    Carsonfire,
    “If you win politically, that means that you’re doing a better job of appealing to the electorate.”
    But the question is how you do it? if you appeal to fear and hatred then by all natural law you should restructure your party.
    As for your assertion that the Republican fringe has no voice – i just can’t understand how you can say that. The entire party has been taken over by the fringe. We have John Ashcroft covering up the breast of the statue of justice – i mean that is just pathological religious extremism. We have the chief advisor marking out as his enemies a third of the American population.
    And as for your search for equivalence of Rove’s remarks – there simply is none. You have to resort to some members of one part of the Democratic party (moveon.org) for your BusHitler example, whereas this was said by the chief advisor to the president (leaving aside the fact that his wage is paid for by the people he slandered). I can only imagine what Limbaugh et al would be saying if Clinton has said something similar about all conservatives.

  • HA

    Ruth,
    I suppose you’ll claim this is a cheap shot, but the Democratic base that Rove was talking about and the Iraqi terrorists are both demanding a fixed timetable for withdrawal from Iraq:
    The Iraqis had agreed beforehand to focus on their main demand, ìa guaranteed timetable of American withdrawal from Iraqî, the source said. ìWe told them it did not matter whether we are talking about one year or a five-year plan but that we insisted on having a timetable nonetheless.î
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1669601_1,00.html
    This is your chance to defend the Democrats. I’ll assume for the sake of argument that the Democrats and the terrorists want different outcomes in Iraq. Please take this opportunity to explain how it is possible for at least some Democrats and the Iraqi terrorists to achieve different outcomes by EXACTLY the same means?
    Furthermore, Democrats have been asserting that the war in Iraq is working in the terrorists’ interests. If that is true, why would they want us to withdraw?
    Because from where I stand, it looks like the Democrats and the terrorists desire EXACTLY the same OUTCOME- which is an American defeat in Iraq. I, for one, don’t underestimate the intelligence of our enemy. It is overwhelmingly obvious that the terrorists would not call for an American withdrawal timetable unless it was in their interests that we do so.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    If everyone has duly washed their mouths out with soap : Okay there are foulmouthed comments on other sites. did any of you deal with them? I didn’t and you will note my general absence there.
    carsonfire:
    excuse me, are you supposed to be coloring sites as reprehensible by the comments made on them, or just posting unsavory comments so you can tush tush?
    Now to the subject, if everybody’s happy. Dems too have a warprone faction, and you can go to http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007061.php#55969 to find comments on that subject.
    As to a timetable: The Aussies yesterday left East Timor on a timetable. It was peaceful, ending bloodshed and internal factional warring under UN auspices all handled with maturity and wisdom. We are probably capable of meeting these same high standards. The leaders who are capable of the same are just not in place at the moment.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Ruth, the quotes I used were all from the comments on JJ’s blog here, the first two from the thread *two posts down* from this one, on this very same subject. I’m not saying you can’t complain about the vulgarity, but you did pick an extremely humorous time to be offended.
    Franky: But the question is how you do it? if you appeal to fear and hatred then by all natural law you should restructure your party.
    The “fear and hatred” line is simply the leftist spin to explain away reality. The Republicans have been successful by pushing a *proactive* agenda against terrorism.
    Defining aggressively proactive action as “fear and hatred” is the *only* way that the insane leftist line can be defended — the line that says that terrorists should be understood, tolerated, coddled, etc… which is precisely Rove’s critique — and why we only hear attacks against Rove for saying such things, and no real argument for why he was *wrong*.
    The entire party has been taken over by the fringe. We have John Ashcroft covering up the breast of the statue of justice – i mean that is just pathological religious extremism.
    No it isn’t! Janet Reno was *leasing* the drapes to cover up the statue — the left knows this, but downplays and ignores this fact because facts like this destroy the cartoonish characterizations they so desperately need in order to draw attention away from their own shortcomings.
    And once again, we have an example of spin that is of course *factual* (look at my dozens of links of other leftist websites that point out that Ashcroft is a pathological Christian covering up statues!) while conveniently leaving out any context that makes the characterization *true*.
    Go here to DailyKos, the most popular Democratic/liberal blog, and scroll down to the bottom of the comments. In a moment of fairness and clarity, one of the members asks why there cannot be found any photos of Janet Reno standing in front of the boobs, even though photos of Ashcroft and Meese in front of the boobs are easily found. If you know of these photos of Reno taken specifically to embarrass her (the photographers have to duck down on purpose in order to get that angle), as the photos of Ashcroft and Meese were, please clarify this for us and for this lone poster at DailyKos. His request so far has been met with the sound of crickets.
    We have the chief advisor marking out as his enemies a third of the American population.
    It becomes wearying to argue this point, which I think is why some of us were cheered by Rove’s comments, even as liberals were angered and mortified.
    I don’t think the liberal actions against the war are criminal, per se… but they are childish, petulant, and ultimately harmful to a degree that no nation in the past — not even the US — would have tolerated in a time of war.
    And it continues to be a hollow complaint from the people who accuse the rest of us of destroying the world because we didn’t sign the ridiculous Kyoto treaty. If you don’t like hyperbole, stop relying on it as your *primary* weapon of choice.
    And as for your search for equivalence of Rove’s remarks – there simply is none.
    Right. Rove spoke a basic, observable truth, while most attacks from the left these days are hyperbolic and personal.
    You have to resort to some members of one part of the Democratic party (moveon.org) for your BusHitler example, whereas this was said by the chief advisor to the president (leaving aside the fact that his wage is paid for by the people he slandered).
    MoveOn.org was a pretty big deal in the last election or two, so it’s not really a matter of “resorting” to them. Kerry’s people kept in close contact with them (one or more of his aides, IIRC, moved back and forth between his staff and MoveOn.org); their heroes (like Michael Moore) were honored at the Democratic convention.
    I can only imagine what Limbaugh et al would be saying if Clinton has said something similar about all conservatives.
    You don’t have to imagine; Clinton blamed the Oklahoma City bombings specifically on Rush Limbaugh and right wing “hate speech” (i.e., the fact that conservatives finally had more parity in access to political speech as liberals thanks to radio and the internet)
    There were objections and complaints, of course, but there was no call for Clinton to resign because of his stupid, partisan, and insulting remarks. Maybe there should have been?

  • franky

    Clinton’s comments would have been the same if he blamed the Oklahoma bombing on conservatives in general. And you honestly don’t think that the extreme talk-radio played no part in the Oklahoma bombings? Or have you forgotten the regular accusations (drug-running, numerous murders, Clinton giving away US to the UN etc etc)
    And you cannot claim that some members of an activist group is the same as the president’s chief advisor – this would be like me extrapolating about all conservatives by quoting Freepers.
    No, it’s not a proactive terrorist policy if you are targetting your own people as Rove is doing. We’re in the middle of a war and what do the Republicans want to talk about – flag-burning, liberals etc etc. They’re scared and they want to energise their base by resorting to fear and hatred. Many over the sphere see this as evidence the WH knows exactly how bad Iraq is.
    I was unaware of Reno’s objection to standing in front of the statue, and that further increases my contempt for the clinton gang – but I would assume there’s different motives here. We know what the wingnuts feel about the female body because they howl everytime it is shown on tv.
    I would correct my statement on a “third of americans” as apparently only 20% of the population define themselves as liberal. We’re the ones always told by numbnuts “don’t you know we’re at war” (I was dining with my father in DC and there was some dispute over the line to get in to the restuarant and this dork in all seriousness said “don’t you know we’re at war?” – he seemed pretty embarrassed as everyone around us began to laugh) – and then in a time of war the chief advisor declares his contempt for one in every five americans (and is “delighted” by the outbreak of infighting that occurs). Yeah there’s the unity we need.
    And who the hell said terrorists should seek therapy? It’s just a total historical rewrite – we have the figures on authorising action following the 9/11 attacks. What do you have? Edith “Legalize Now” Yellowflower in San Francisco maybe once wrote on a blog somewhere that terrorists should get therapy. So we know that anyone who did ask them to get therapy would be such a tiny amount of the population, ask yourself why the chief advisor to the president thinks them worthy of mentioning? He’s got nothing more important to talk of? what was his motivation?
    Fear and hatred.

  • franky

    Ha,
    So your administration (“no nuance here” “with us or against”) has authorized talks with “terrorists” (I put it in quotes because whereas the actions of the foreign fighters clearly is terrorism, i think there’s reason to think that some of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting against an occupying force and attacking state security forces so removing them from the terrorist group – of course that’s a distinction you can’t make) and is at least discussing the possibility of a timed withdrawl from Iraq – and you some how manage to blame the democrats for this?

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    And who the hell said terrorists should seek therapy?
    Heh, that line broke me up.
    And the great thing is, responding to that jab in such a brittle, defensive fashion only reinforces the descriptive characterization to non-liberals.
    Rove *is* a genius.
    Seriously, liberals are doing Rove a great favor by exploding this message. Once again, while you may think you’re winning on a clear-cut issue, you are demonstrating to the general public exactly what Rove wants them to see: the fact that recent, mounting criticisms of Gitmo are being ginned up by a minority of people who are racked with emotionalism, as opposed to having a sober view of our current challenges.

  • franky

    Ok, finally figured it out – you all get “delighted” because liberals responded strongly to a lie.
    You don’t care that it’s a lie, which you know it is, but hell just lie, cheat and steal your way forward, right? I get why lobbyists would think this way, but for the life of me I can’t see how anyone not receiving a paycheck for this crap could not feel contempt for this type of politics. But I guess that why I’m not in the Republican party to begin with.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Sorry carsonfire don’t mean to devalue you personally, but the partisan causes you get caught up in don’t command my respect.
    I lost relatives in the concentration camps, they were members of the Polish aristocracy, who refused to accept Nazis as their representatives. Saying that Americans ought not to torture others does not demean them.

  • franky

    “Well, there’s no American that wants us to fail, that’s for sure. When we went home, every member that I’ve talked to had the same experience that I had. Everywhere I went, it didn’t matter who you were talking to — I ran into some of the most liberal constituents that I had. People would come up to me, hug me, kiss me. They would — they’d just say they’re with us, you know, “We want this done and we want it done right, and we’re with you.” I mean, the prayer rallies that we went to, the vigils that we saw.”
    Tom DeLay on 9/20/2001 (taken from Atrios)
    Scum. Filthy scum.

  • Rob Roy

    With Respect to the middle, both party’s retoric is way off base. My personal feeling is that the current administration is further off base because of consistent lying and political posturing. I have always fealt that the elected government is elected to serve the people but now feel that it is strictly an “I won you lost” mentality. All people in this country believe that we should be fighting terrorists and protecting the homeland. However if there are disagreements as to the best approach to achieve this goal they should be debated in full view of the public. I personally feel embarrased and betrayed by both parties in a critical time that we should all be pulling together to defeat those bent on destroying us. However I am especially upset at the current administrations continual lies and coverups as they feel that winning has entitled them to do anything, legal of otherwise to promote their agenda.
    Lastly I must opinionate that I strongly disagree with the lies that got us into the quagmire in Iraq which are very similar to the lies that got us into Vietnam. Both are political wars that have very little to do with the pretexts that involved us. If we had attacked Afganistan and came down hard on Pakistan, Arabia, Syria, Iran and Palestine, the countries sponsoring most of the worlds terrorists with the vigor that we attacked Iraq we would most likely be further along in the battle against terrorism and have world support in our fight. This country needs a real dose of comradery

  • HA

    Ruth,
    The Aussies yesterday left East Timor on a timetable.
    That’s a good one. I thought Iraq was supposed to be like Vietnam, not East Timor.
    Or maybe it will be Vietnam with a happy ending. This time when Democrats talk America into losing the war and let the savages take over, there will be no bloodbath like after Vietnam. Nope, everything will come up roses.
    Earth to Ruth. Iraq is not Vietnam and it is not East Timor.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    Timetable is the operative concept here, HA. Timetables work. Nor did I compare the US to Australia.

  • Ethan

    “Kerry’s people kept in close contact with them (one or more of his aides, IIRC, moved back and forth between his staff and MoveOn.org); their heroes (like Michael Moore) were honored at the Democratic convention.”
    Wow, carsonfire. You have evidence that the Kerry campaign actually BROKE THE LAWW You must really know your stuff. Just one question: how do you know this? Where’s your evidence?
    And if you don’t have any: shut up.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    *checks*
    His name was Zach Exley
    WASHINGTON (CNN) — John Kerry has hired an Internet-savvy Democrat to run his presidential campaign’s online communications, a move that raises new questions about the link between his campaign and the independent groups that run TV ads on his behalf.
    Zach Exley, the director of special projects for the MoveOn PAC, is going to the Kerry campaign to become its director of online communications and organization.
    There’s naturally some question whether this was legal or not, but I never suggested one or the other… I was simply referring to how close MoveOn.org and the Kerry campaign kept during the election.
    Thank you, at least, for not giving me the ol’ “shut the F up”.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    As well, MoveOn.org staffers provided the Kerry campaign with opposition research within the past two months, as well as advance looks at speeches made by MoveOn.org speakers, including former Vice President Al Gore.
    “We’re always running into those guys,” says a Kerry campaign volunteer in Washington, about MoveOn.org staffers. “We socialize with them, we see them at meetings, we can’t avoid it. And of course we talk about the campaign. In some cities, we get our volunteers from MoveOn. No one has ever raised an issue about it.”
    Easily dismissible right wing propaganda despite the actual quotes

  • Ethan

    Having been associated with the Kerry team, I can say this: one of our major priorities was avoiding problems by working with the 527s. At one point we worked in the same building as ACT. And we drew a line, and everyone from myself to the grandmas getting bused in from Jersey did not cross it.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    That’s fine, Ethan, but as I said, I was not making a case for illegality or impropriety — that’s an argument for another day. The only case I was making was for the *stature* of MoveOn.org, which is what was at issue here in light of Rove’s speech.
    Rove spoke about specific actions of MoveOn.org (the petition in particular) to illustrate his case against “liberals”. The complaint about Rove is that he’s making it all up, so it’s important to determine whether he was speaking about an irrlevant fringe group or a representative organization.
    The DNC issued various statements about working with MoveOn.org; the Kerry camp hired MoveOn.org personnel; MoveOn.org held many functions in which prominent Democrats attended; therefore, it’s not convincing now to try to imply that MoveOn.org is simply some disconnected, unimportant, and irrelevant fringe group.
    It is, in fact, a representative group, and its actions are fair game to use as illustrations of the behavior of liberals, for good or ill. And this is why the complaints about Rove’s speech, even coming from Jeff Jarvis, come off as rather wobbly.

  • HA

    Ruth,
    You have dodged my question about how “liberals” and Iraqi insurgents can achieve different objectives in Iraq by the same means of a unilateral timetable for withdrawal.
    I now pronounce your dodging for what it is. A tacit acknowledgement that the ends in fact are the same. Those “liberals” who are calling for a withdrawal share the same means AND objectives as the terrorists. Both want an American defeat in Iraq.
    The only difference is motive. The left wants an American defeat so that we will voluntarily surrender our national sovereignty. The terrorists want to defeat us to destroy us.
    By failing to answer the question, you forfeit the debate.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    In response to my chastizing her for suddenly objecting to vulgar language, Ruth made a dramatic statement about torture. Seemed to be a dead end comment, so I left it alone. But here’s some newer info on the torture at Gitmo for those who are obsessed with the treatment of terrorists:
    Right wing website so they must be lying
    After speaking with soldiers, sailors, and civilians who collectively staff Gitmo, I left convinced that abuse definitely exists at the detention facilities, and it typically fails to receive the press attention it deserves: it’s the relentless, merciless attacks on American servicemen and women by these terrorist thugs. Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if released, he would find MPs in their homes through the internet, break into their houses at night, and “cut the throats of them and their families like sheep.” Others claim authority and vindication to kill women, children, and other innocents who oppose their jihadist mission authorized by the Koran (the same one that hangs in every cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect it from a touching the cell floor – all provided at U.S. taxpayer expense). One detainee was heard to tell another: “One day I will enjoy sucking American blood, although their blood is bitter, undrinkable….” These recalcitrant detainees are known euphemistically as being “non-compliant.” They attack guards whenever the soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under protective facemasks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break limbs as the guards pass them food.

    The detainees are similarly catered to medically. Almost every one arrived at GITMO with some sort of battlefield trauma. After all, the majority were captured in combat. Today they are healthy, immunized, and well cared for. At a visit to the modern hospital facility – dedicated solely to the detainees and comparable to a well-equipped and staffed small-town hospital with operating, dental, routine facilities – the doctor in charge confirmed that the caloric count for the detainees was so high that while “most detainees arrived undernourished,” medics now watch for issues stemming from high cholesterol and being overweight. Each of approximately 520 terrorists currently held in confinement averages about four medical visits monthly, something one would expect from only a dedicated American hypochondriac. Welcome to the rigors of detention under American supervision.
    You see? We’ve devised the most fiendish torture yet: we’re making them fat!
    Contrast this actual reality with Durbin’s paraphrased FBI “report” which surely transcribes the typical playbook complaints of detainees.
    The fact that the left dwells on the “sez me” word of men who have made it their mission to simply kill lots n’ lots of innocent people — and automatically dismiss anything anybody else says to the contrary — is shameful no matter how many old sympathetic stories of abuse by others can be dredged up. This is not an exercise on the left’s part of keeping America from becoming Nazis; it is their effort to protect today’s Nazis so that they may more efficiently kill and destroy, unhindered by a military that, while well-equipped, still does not have God-like powers, are human, and will make mistakes.
    And this, again, comes to Rove’s point: is the left working for America and against terrorists? Or is the left working for a safer world for terrorists, which means a less safe world for literally everyone else?
    So far, it seems to be the latter that energizes the left. And when confronted with this ugly fact, the left cannot justify their actual actions and behavior, but must act supremely offended and try to pretend that their actual actions and behavior are something different, and perhaps done as an exercise in freedom, even though the terrorists have as an ultimate goal the elimination of freedom.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    In response to my chastizing her for suddenly objecting to vulgar language, Ruth made a dramatic statement about torture. Seemed to be a dead end comment, so I left it alone. But here’s some newer info on the torture at Gitmo for those who are obsessed with the treatment of terrorists:
    Right wing website so they must be lying
    After speaking with soldiers, sailors, and civilians who collectively staff Gitmo, I left convinced that abuse definitely exists at the detention facilities, and it typically fails to receive the press attention it deserves: it’s the relentless, merciless attacks on American servicemen and women by these terrorist thugs. Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if released, he would find MPs in their homes through the internet, break into their houses at night, and “cut the throats of them and their families like sheep.” Others claim authority and vindication to kill women, children, and other innocents who oppose their jihadist mission authorized by the Koran (the same one that hangs in every cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect it from a touching the cell floor – all provided at U.S. taxpayer expense). One detainee was heard to tell another: “One day I will enjoy sucking American blood, although their blood is bitter, undrinkable….” These recalcitrant detainees are known euphemistically as being “non-compliant.” They attack guards whenever the soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under protective facemasks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break limbs as the guards pass them food.

    The detainees are similarly catered to medically. Almost every one arrived at GITMO with some sort of battlefield trauma. After all, the majority were captured in combat. Today they are healthy, immunized, and well cared for. At a visit to the modern hospital facility – dedicated solely to the detainees and comparable to a well-equipped and staffed small-town hospital with operating, dental, routine facilities – the doctor in charge confirmed that the caloric count for the detainees was so high that while “most detainees arrived undernourished,” medics now watch for issues stemming from high cholesterol and being overweight. Each of approximately 520 terrorists currently held in confinement averages about four medical visits monthly, something one would expect from only a dedicated American hypochondriac. Welcome to the rigors of detention under American supervision.
    You see? We’ve devised the most fiendish torture yet: we’re making them fat!
    Contrast this actual reality with Durbin’s paraphrased FBI “report” which surely transcribes the typical playbook complaints of detainees.
    The fact that the left dwells on the “sez me” word of men who have made it their mission to simply kill lots n’ lots of innocent people — and automatically dismiss anything anybody else says to the contrary — is shameful no matter how many old sympathetic stories of abuse by others can be dredged up. This is not an exercise on the left’s part of keeping America from becoming Nazis; it is their effort to protect today’s Nazis so that they may more efficiently kill and destroy, unhindered by a military that, while well-equipped, still does not have God-like powers, are human, and will make mistakes.
    And this, again, comes to Rove’s point: is the left working for America and against terrorists? Or is the left working for a safer world for terrorists, which means a less safe world for literally everyone else?
    So far, it seems to be the latter that energizes the left. And when confronted with this ugly fact, the left cannot justify their actual actions and behavior, but must act supremely offended and try to pretend that their actual actions and behavior are something different, and perhaps done as an exercise in freedom, even though the terrorists have as an ultimate goal the elimination of freedom.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Oops! Sorry for the double post, especially a double post of a long comment. My mouse hand slipped and I clicked twice.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    “The left wants an American defeat so that we will voluntarily surrender our national sovereignty.”
    The statement is so patently absurd that anyone can see on its face it is strident nonsense unconnected to facts. And any statement about ‘losing the debate’ is just silly.

  • Linda Edwards

    “Those “liberals” who are calling for a withdrawal share the same means AND objectives as the terrorists. Both want an American defeat in Iraq.”
    HA, I’m sure NC Rep Walter (Freedom Fries) Jones (R)and TX Rep Ron Paul (R) will be interested to know they’re now considered “liberals”, abetting the terrorists and seeking an American defeat. These two Republicans also co-sponsored a resolution calling for a withdrawl timetable.
    Damned traitors

  • Franky

    Linda,
    Don’t forget the wingnuts favorite arab, Chalabi, has also declared he wants us to fail (well obviously he’s been taught in the terror camps to lie, so he’s used the old “time-tabled withdrawl” – but as good, keen-eyed citizens I think we know EXACTLY what he really means).

  • Eileen

    ANYONE who presses for a withdrawal date is a peabrained idiot, including (mostly) liberals/ Iraqi opposition insurgents, and a few stray, stupid Repubs…

  • HA

    Linda Edwards,
    Damned traitors
    No, they’re just ignorant fools. Now you’re seeking cover from the man who gave us “Freedom Fries” and an old-school isolationist. Pathetic. Really pathetic. I think that Pat Buchanan agrees with you too. That’s fine intellectual and moral company you keep.
    But since Ruth has studiously dodged the question, maybe you’ll step up to the plate. Or are you going to dodge it too by seeking cover from a couple of Republican idiots?

  • HA

    Ruth,
    The statement is so patently absurd that anyone can see on its face it is strident nonsense unconnected to facts.
    Well then you should be able to easily explain the differences in expected outcomes. So either you are dodging the question because you don’t have an alternative explanation and you are attempting to distract from this fact with lame posturing, or else you are just plain lazy. Which is it?

  • HA

    Ruth,
    BTW, we have a track record to work with. John Kerry has consistently and without exception advocated American policies that EXACLTY coincide with those our nation’s enemies wanted.
    He did this in Vietnam. He did it in the Cold War. He did this in Central America. He did this with our arms and intelligence programs. He is now doing it in Iraq. And most Democrats along the way have agreed with him at every step.

  • HA

    Here is the revealing comment from Kerry’s NY Times essay:
    Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/opinion/28kerry.html?
    If there are so many jihadists in Iraq, shouldn’t we stay there until we kill them all?
    John Kerry is calling for America to leave up to 20,000 jihadists in Iraq unopposed by American force. Thank God this traitor was rejected by the American people.

  • http://RuthCalvo Ruth

    “The left wants an American defeat so that we will voluntarily surrender our national sovereignty.”
    This is on the level of saying that the right wants to start building concentration camps. *I’m lazy*?

  • HA

    Ruth,
    Yes, subordination of national sovereignty is a central goal of the contemporary left. Today’s left believes that nationalism and patriotism are vices that cause war. Thus they want to suppress it. This is the driving force behind the EU. This is the driving force behind the lefist goal of America volunarily subordinating its national sovereignty to the UN, the ICC and Kyoto.
    The position of the left is that by losing in Iraq, America will be burned so badly that it will not go to war again without passing the “global test.” And they don’t give a damn about the inevitable bloodbath that would follow a withdrawal. Just like Vietnam. You know this is true and your sneering denials only further erode your credibility. This is the height of moral and intellectual corruption.
    Unlike you, I won’t dodge an argument. Admittedly this is easier since facts and logic are my allies.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    “The left wants an American defeat so that we will voluntarily surrender our national sovereignty.”
    Actually, I’d take issue with this too, because it’s too simplistic. The left doesn’t want to yield sovereignty per se; but they see a strongly leftist Europe as a more friendly ally than the growing conservative majority domestically.
    So it’s a matter of convincing stupid American yokels that the force of international leftism carries more weight than domestically elected conservatism.
    In essence, ceding power from the US in this way is ceding power from the elected to *themselves*, just as liberal judges are often used to skirt democracy; liberal judges and socia*list leaders abroad are more trustworthy to enact their agenda than Republicans at home. So I believe that liberals are sincere when they object to accusations of surrendering sovereignty, because they truly don’t regard it that way; for them, it isn’t ceding power, but regaining it.
    The fatal danger in this, though, is that international leftism tends to be dictatorish, and thinks it can control populations by edict, as Chirac has done, trying to control the Muslim dress code within France.
    But totalitarian-friendly leftism in a free society puts us at risk of losing freedoms to tyrants and zealots. Ginning up unsubstantiated complaints about the Patriot Act, for instance, which simply extends logical police powers to investigators, inadvertently defends the rights of people who would execute homosexuals.

  • Linda Edwards

    HA
    “John Kerry has consistently and without exception advocated American policies that EXACLTY coincide with those our nation’s enemies wanted.”
    All you provide is alot of shrill rants and slanted opinion, you never provide credible (note: credible) evidence to back up you’re ridiculous claims. In reality, you wouldn’t know fact and logic if it hit you in the head.
    Those 20,000 jihadists. The reason they’re there (when they weren’t there Bush invaded), is because Bush invaded Iraq without a plan to secure the country. Maybe we’d take you a little more seriously if you stop trying to deflect the responsibility for this mess from that incompetant boob, Bush.
    Now let’s see, which is the lie and which isn’t. Do we really want to:
    1) attract the terrorists to Iraq so that they don’t come here; or,
    2) stop the terrorists at the border so that they don’t flood into Iraq.
    Gosh, confusing policy, eh? And that’s exactly how this whole campaign/debacle has been waged. Confused and disorganized. So what do we get? Just more of the old, “we screwed up and its all your fault”.
    But keep talking. The more you rant, the more desparate you sound. Rather amusing.

  • HA

    carsonfire,
    for them, it isn’t ceding power, but regaining it.
    Wow. I am humbled before your superior ability to plumb the depths of the Marxist mind for their hidden motives. I had never looked at things that way, but it is just insane enough to be plausible.
    Still, the stated reasoning usually provided for suppressing national sovereignty is that nationalism causes war. That is their reductionist argument, not mine.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Those 20,000 jihadists. The reason they’re there (when they weren’t there Bush invaded), is because Bush invaded Iraq without a plan to secure the country.
    Praise Allah! The infidel Bush has invaded Iraq without a plan to secure the country. Now’s our time to strike!
    It’s funny hearing about credible (note: credible) evidence and desperate rants from people on the left. Terrorists have attacked and menaced innocents as far back as the 70s, long before Bush the elder was even elected, yet the left’s constant refrain is that terrorism is simply a biproduct of putting dopes like Bush and Rumsfeld in charge.
    But the violence didn’t just start on 9/11. There is a long history of international terrorism, and it is indeed the heightened level of violence that has prompted some of us to decide that taking proactive action is the right course, as opposed to the old method of sitting back and letting terrorists run roughshod over the globe in perpetuity.
    From the 70s to the 80s to the 90s to now, terrorists have progressed from hijacking planes to taking large groups of people hostage to bombing small ships to causing massive, coordinated destruction. Do the facts point to A) global inaction allowing terrorists to work out bigger and better ways of killing innocent people, leading to greater tragedies in the future, or B) oh, maybe they’ve finally got it out of their system, the little scamps?
    So far, the left is opting for B, while humorously calling itself the “reality-based community”, and oddly crying “Bush Lied!”, as if imperfect data and plans for probable eventualties means that international terrorism is simply fiction.
    Credible facts — history — demonstrate that the problem is escalating. And yet, the answer from the left is to bug out! Abandon the aggressive military solution and go back to pretending there’s no problem apart from wascally wepublicans! To go lalalalalalalalalala every time somebody tries to remind them what happened on September 11. Oh, you right wingers are just trying to scaaaaare everybody! 9/11 didn’t happen! All those people who leapt to their deaths from that inferno that used to be the World Trade Center probably deserved it since they were filthy capitalists! You’re just making sh*t up when you say there was a connection between Saddam and terrorism, even though he was opaquely handing out cash rewards to Palestinian terrorists! Joe Wilson determined that terrorism isn’t really real over a drink with some guy! We’ve heard all of this “credible” stuff over and over, and it demonstrates not a grasp of evidence and history, but a disgruntled, latent hate, that simply is not excused by little tales of past offenses and tribulations.
    It is your right to disagree with the path the rest of us have taken, but your best arguments so far are: Bush is a boob (opinion); war is an orderly process where every detail is carefully mapped out ahead of time (wha?); and Bush is a boob (we heard you the first time). We have not heard any credible arguments on this, but we continue trying to be polite, anyway.
    In the end, despite all other arguments, you have to make one case: terrorism is not about compelling infidels to bow to extremist religious views, but the result of BusHitler’s horrible policies. It is this inane fairy tale that winds up aligning the left with terrorists — their fairy tale, not the right’s. The right wouldn’t even think to suggest such an alignment if not for constant leftist speech to the contrary. It was leftist darling Michael Moore, after all, and not a Republican, who said that the terrorists hit the wrong people on 9/11, suggesting that Democrats and terrorists alike would be better off without Republicans.
    The left cannot credibly make that case, though, that terrorism is a response to American conservatism. They are merely indulging in some sort of hateful projected wish; a totalitarian desire, I suppose, to be able to do to their political enemies, in a free society, what terrorists do to their enemies.
    That is not a fact, of course, but speculation. But if not that, then what? The muslim extremists’ views run especially counter to liberalism in almost every respect. So why do you do it? These extremists stand for oppressing women and killing gays; they are undemocratic; they stand for killing those who do not submit to their views; they do, in fact, kill at will, destroy at will. While you criticize Bush and the military for not protecting a museum, you ignore a subversive movement that proactively destroys history and people alike. If terrorists were to invade the US in mass numbers, liberals and leftists would be the *first* against the wall (or with their heads on the block, as the case may be). If muslim extremists show the left any preference at all, it is because they recognize that the left is their best conduit of naivety, their best “useful idiots”. Yet the left defends them at every turn, with the silly and nannyish complaint that they would fight them better, but if Bush wasn’t around, they wouldn’t have to, anyway, because it’s only because Bush exists that the terrorists do what they do. Hear the pretty birds chirping and the sun bounding off the mountains like a rubber ball!
    Don’t talk about credible evidence until you begin relying on it yourself, instead of arguing from the myopia of political hatred.

  • HA

    Linda,
    Those 20,000 jihadists. The reason they’re there (when they weren’t there Bush invaded), is because Bush invaded Iraq without a plan to secure the country.
    Well now that 20,000 jihadists are there, the Kerry “plan” is to WITHDRAW without a “plan” to secure the country.
    I suppose that after we withdraw that all 20,000 will go home and open flower stands? Because as every intellectually superior lefty knows, the jihadists are pure reactionaries incapable of acting under their own initiative in pursuit of their own ideology. Nope, they only exist in reaction to us because as always America is to be blamed first.
    Maybe we’d take you a little more seriously if
    What makes you think I want YOU to take me seriously? I don’t think you are capable of grasping logical arguments to the extent that it is worthwhile to make the effort. I used to take the time to google links to back up my arguments with idiots, but then a week later, the same idiot would make the same argument without any modification whatsoever based on new information that I provided.
    So why bother. Instead, all I’m doing is picking out the inherent conflict between your arguments and reality and using them against you. And you make it SO easy.

  • HA

    Bravo, carsonfire! Well done.

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Wow. I am humbled before your superior ability to plumb the depths of the Marxist mind for their hidden motives. I had never looked at things that way, but it is just insane enough to be plausible.
    Well, it doesn’t make any sense, otherwise. You see it in their methodology pre-9/11. The US left tells the European left that the new president is a stupid, cowboy boob; the European left churns out articles and cartoons depicting the new president as a stupid, cowboy boob; the US left then waves around the European stuff and says, see? Stupid, cowboy boob, just like we said!
    It’s like a big, global support group for the daffy. I can’t think of any equivalent allegiances on the right; the modern right consists of independent thinkers.
    Still, the stated reasoning usually provided for suppressing national sovereignty is that nationalism causes war. That is their reductionist argument, not mine.
    That’s true enough. I’m just concerned that the more simplistic charge makes it easier for them to countercharge and get away with it. It’s technically not true that they want to cede sovereignty, as I said; they are always bellowing that they need to “take back the country” (even in contravention of elections), so it’s easy for them to mock the charge that they want to give it away.
    It is just better, IMHO, to point out that their definition of nationalism is democracy, Americans relying on our own elections and laws, and their definition of globalism is to create dominance for an unelected left. Do they not, after all, have some professor advising them to use words deceptively in order to obfuscate their true motives?

  • Eileen

    Beautiful, Carsonfire. Bravo! I also find it ‘interesting’ that the left continues to insist on aligning itself with the enemy when, as you say, THEIR more liberal, wanton heads would be the first on the chopping blocks if we welcomed Jihadis with understanding, apologetic and open arms.
    Do you think they’ll ever ‘get it’?