Friday, June 24, 2005

Democrats Whine, Media Dines (Rove Shines)

I wanted to comment on this ridiculous Democrat whining about Carl Rove’s political speech in which he gave an interesting and largely accurate portrayal of the difference between post-9/11 conservatives and liberals.

First, it is clear that he was making a generalization. By lumping all conservatives and all liberals together into groups, he was using a literary device, one that sane people recognize. He didn’t mean ALL conservatives or ALL liberals. So if he were to clarify by saying that it was clear he meant “some liberals”, not “all liberals”, he would only be stating the obvious.

The Democrats are all over the news begging Rove to apologize to them, or for the President to fire him, for stating the obvious.

The only reason the Democrats get away with this at all is that the Media has decided to back one side. Also, they won’t make independent critical comments of hypocrisy, preferring instead to wait for an opponent to react, and then to cover the fistfight.

An unbiased media would be laughing at Senator Reid, who called the president both a loser and a liar, AND said that the Republicans in the Senate wanted to institute one-party rule and a theocracy, now claiming foul. And they wouldn’t report Hillary Clinton complaining about Rove in New York without pointing out her words at the Minnesota fundraiser when she said that for America to survive it was imperative that the republicans be stopped. And we could go on, but the media should be doing this.

Carl Rove, a POLITICAL OPERATIVE (not a white house appointee, or a confirmed member of the staff), goes to a POLITICAL GATHERING, and makes a POLITICAL POINT where he gives HIS opinion of the difference between the conservative and liberal agenda.

And the Elected Democrats, who couldn’t seem to find their voices to raise a peep against comments Senator Durbin made, comments SO BAD that HE HIMSELF eventually apologized, have now found their voice to defend not the country, not the military, but rather themselves.

The same party leadership who claim that the republicans want to kill your children, poison your water, send all your jobs overseas, take all your money and give it to rich people, steal your grandparent’s social security and give it to Ken Lay, and turn our democracy into either a Taliban-like repressive theocratic regime, OR a one-party dictatorship — they are complaining that Rove said that liberals (not ALL liberals, meaning SOME liberals) didn’t like the idea of war, and would rather have fought terrorists like criminals.

Anybody remember any democrats saying that James Carville our Paul Begala should be fired for all the things they said about republicans? Don’t think so.

But it is fair for the Democrats to act this way — Rove is political, and they are political. The MEDIA is supposed to see through this and report the truth to the American people, and it would rather cheer the democrats, because the media want the democrats to win.


Anonymous said...

Shine on, you crazy... turd blossom.

Anonymous said...

Um, dude? Rove is Bush's deputy chief of staff in charge of policy. How is that not a "confirmed" staff member? Facts, they're called facts.

texprodigy said...

To echo what "anonymous" said, Karl (not "Carl") Rove was appointed on February 8, 2005, to be President Bush's Assistant to the President, Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor. He was appointed by Bush. Here is the announcement:

You may want to use Google, Yahoo, or some other search engine and confim facts before you comment on them. BTW, Wikipedia is a good source of up-to-date information.



edddie said...

plus, you strike me as being somewhat of an asshole. surely i'm not the first person to point this out, though.

zota said...

You're right about Carl -- that guy works with hamburgers.

Not that KARL Rove is going to have his White House job much longer, but still long enough to make you look like a blithering idiot.

Maybe you should watch less TV, huh kid?

criticallythinking said...

Wow, someone read my stuff. Wish I had been more accurate now.....

You are right, as of February 8 he became a "political appointee" rather than a political advisor, although I don't believe he was subject to confirmation by the Senate for that post.

Not that it matters, as his comments were appropriate in any case, and were made in his role as political advisor at a political rally. These are typical comments made at political events.

However, keeping up with current events is not a minor matter, and I should have taken care even in an unresearched commentary on an unknown blog.

Spelling his name wrong I would like to claim as a typographical error, but since I did it twice I'll have to fall on my sword for that as well.....

I can only guess that the recent Rove news brought out searches that brought people to this site. I'll have to post some newer material about the silly Wilson stuff.

idahogie said...

First, it is clear that he was making a generalization. By lumping all conservatives and all liberals together into groups, he was using a literary device, one that sane people recognize. He didn’t mean ALL conservatives or ALL liberals. So if he were to clarify by saying that it was clear he meant “some liberals”, not “all liberals”, he would only be stating the obvious.

Yeah...just like when Sen. Durbin was commenting on the behaviour of some soldiers torturing people at Gitmo. All you sane conservatives recognized that as a literary device and accepted his valid point - that torturers make us think about tyrants and despots, not the US military.


criticallythinking said...

Actually, the sane conservatives did realise exactly what Durbin was talking about, and knew he wasn't talking about the entire military.

Durbin was saying that the official policy of the United States toward detainees at Guantanamo was to treat them like prisoners were treated in the Gulags or the death camps.

He clarified that he wasn't talking about those who were KILLED in those camps, but merely those who were tortured for information.

His comparison was faulty, because Stalin didn't interrogate people for information, he tortured them until they confessed to whatever he told them to, and then he killed them.

And the Germans weren't interrogating the people they weren't gassing, they were doing medical experiments on them, like rats.

The mistake Durbin made was to use an inappropriate analogy in an attempt to discredit the administration, and to do so in such a "clever" way that it sounded like he was attacking those who ran the prison.

He realised this long before he apologized, since on Thursday he tried to make it clear that he wasn't talking about the troops, but rather those doing the questioning. Of course he wasn't really attacking them either, but the administration that he was implying approved of techniques that were like those of Pol Pot and others.

In the end, Durbin simply came up with an inelegant way to say "Bush = Hitler = Stalin = Pol Pot", and ended up comparing America instead.

Rove on the other hand didn't attack anybody, he simply stated his opinion as to why a slight majority of the voters were inclined to pick Conservatives over Liberals, who he thought had the wrong approach on the war on terror.

Not ALL liberals, just the ones he mentioned.

Anonymous said...

Think critically.

If it were a Democrat who outed Plame would this be worth looking into?

If it was a Democrat president that said there were WMD's and Iraq was buying yellow cake would this be worth digging into?

If democrats had made as many mistakes, I am not calling them lies, as this current bunch has done would it be reason to call for impeachment?

Ahhh the joys of backing the home team no matter how many cheerleaders they rape.