DIviders, not Uniters
Friday, June 24th, 2005 01:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basildestinyYou all may recall last year about this time, I was gearing up for the 2004 election. I signed up on the John Kerry website and worked really hard to promote the man that I felt was best suited for the job. I have since changed my mind and gone from a staunch Democrat to not being one. It was brought to my attention that I wasn't voting with my morals and ethics. And when I looked at my reasons for wanting to be a Democrat, it wasn't because I felt that side was right. It was because I didn't like what the other side was doing. I had taken a "them vs us" attitude and was determined to bring about some change. So I re-evaluated what was important to me. When I did that, I realized that I sided with the President. I didn't think he was a saint, but I felt he was closer to what I believed than John Kerry. At the very least, he did what he said. I could count on him to say something and do it.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
That being said, I got an email this morning from John Kerry. I'm still signed up through his website. I've heard that someone even called from his campaign thanking me for my support. I wasn't at home to receive this phone call. But back to my point, the email today was entitled "Dividers, not Uniters" and spoke about how this White House was dividing the nation. Today's division was being lead by Karl Rove who classified conservatives and liberals as such: Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. This statement does not seem unfair or untrue to me today. I can understand what Karl Rove meant and true, he didn't use maybe the best phrasing. In honesty, as John Kerry says, we all united together after the attacks and were all Americans. However, 4 years later, this is what we have, exactly what Karl Rove said. And he said it nicely. He could have used harsher language to describe liberals if his goal was to divide the nation. Perhaps it was his goal, but John Kerry didn't quote the entire speech. Just quoted that part in particular to illustrate his point and I do not believe his point is illustrated.
But John Kerry takes it a step further. And says that our reaction to this should be a letter to the President requesting (if you really think that John Kerry would be satisfied with a no because it was only a request) that the President renounce Rove's claims. Then he took a step further by giving a speech in front of the Senate calling for Karl Rove's resignation. But that wasn't really what he said. He actually called for President Bush to fire Rove. Let me just ask the question that is the big pink elephant in the room for me. How is firing Rove going to unite the country? How is demanding the President renounce Rove's claims going to unite the country? Does John Kerry have any plans or ideas in mind that would unite the country?
The reasonable thing to do would be to say that Karl Rove may have used incorrect phrasing. Of course, he didn't mean ALL liberals and ALL conservatives see things this way. And it certainly wasn't anyone's initial reaction. But if you really don't think the nation is not divided something even vaguely along those lines, I challenge you to turn on the news or pick up a paper or go to a news website and see if you still feel that way.
The President certainly isn't a saint, but does he divide anymore than John Kerry?
~Bas
PS Was that any less of a collosal waste of time than Congressman Kurt Weldon's speech in front of Congress two days ago? Here is an excerpt. He was upset that he was banned from the Factor for life because he didn't call and let anyone know he wasn't going to make it and in fact the Factor had received an email saying he was 15 minutes away. It turns out that his staff had made a mistake. But instead leaving it at that, the people paid for this to be put on the Record.
Talk about spin, Mr. Speaker. So today, I sent a memo to Mr. O'Reilly explaining the facts. Now I would remind Mr. O'Reilly that the Secretary of Energy, an important meeting on nuclear issues in the former Soviet states, takes my top priority.
So Mr. Speaker, for the record, because I had some contacts from constituents or other members, I would put the summary of my statement to Mr. O'Reilly and the notes of my staff about their contact with Mr. O'Reilly's show in to the Congressional Record.
Such an over reaction.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I am curious about one thing
Date: 2005-06-24 10:47 pm (UTC)During the campaign, when Kerry said Bush intended to privatize Social Security, Bush said that was a lie. Suddenly Bush's #1 priority is to privatize Social Security.
There's a huge list of examples of Bush changing positions and rationales. Kerry very rarely changes position on anything. But I'm sincerely curious as to why Bush supporters believe that he's 'steadfast' when there's so much evidence to the contrary.
Re: I am curious about one thing
Date: 2005-06-24 11:05 pm (UTC)Re: I am curious about one thing
Date: 2005-06-24 11:26 pm (UTC)What is your position on those issues exactly?
Re: I am curious about one thing
Date: 2005-06-25 01:01 am (UTC)Being said abortion is not a woman's right. It isn't her body that is destroyed, it's the baby's body. I always felt that way as a democrat. I felt it shouldn't be used as an alternative to birth control or abstinence. Abstinence being the best choice. But I will go as far as saying now that children are a gift that should not be thrown away no matter the circumstances. It's not that I would want to have a child after being raped or that I want to die in childbirth, but rather that even these circumstances do not make murder ok. As a side, I think this society finds it more appalling to think that kittens or puppies might be aborted than a human baby. There's something backward about that.
Gay marriage should not be legal. And there is a difference between being gay and being transgendered or being dual gendered.
Re: I am curious about one thing
Date: 2005-06-25 01:27 am (UTC)It's a documented fact that there have been more abortions under Bush than under Clinton (probably because of cutbacks in access to contraception). But I can see why abortion opponents would hope that Bush's Supreme Court appointees would make abortion illegal. It's hard for me to imagine choosing that way, because Bush's other policies are so horrific. But I guess I can see why, if that's your priority, you would pin your hopes on Bush making Supreme Court appointments that will make abortion illegal and thus harder (though not impossible) to obtain.
Re: I am curious about one thing
Date: 2005-06-25 01:53 am (UTC)I'll say that when I supported Kerry, I was certain that he wanted gay marriage but backed down on the issue because he knew he wouldn't get the majority vote if he said he believed in it. I thought it was a little weak of him to do that, but I wanted to see him win so I didn't argue. I just felt he should have jumped off the cliff for his cause. Of course I feel differently now.
I never had the impression that Bush wanted to approve gay marriage. I did have an idea that Cheney might have been a little bit soft on that one issue. Which was always hard for me to swallow as a Democrat--Cheney being soft. Yeah right!
I
HATEgreatly dislike THE SUPREME COURT!!! This country is lead by those 9 Justices. I guess that does go back on what I said initially about hating people so I just greatly dislike them. I don't think that Bush is my hope at all. He's very obdurate or that was my impression and I think Kerry's impression of the man in the debates. He simply doesn't change his mind. Right or wrong, he's not going anywhere. Is he a great speaker? Nope. Do I wish he would explain himself more? Yep. But do I continue to believe he's doing a horrible job? Nope. Do I keep up with every political issue? Nope, I've been planning a wedding lately and adjusting to a new boss at work so I've had other things to do that to do the research on issues that I did last year. However, I do know that I do not want gay marriage and I do not support abortions and I know that as a Democrat I did support gay marriage and I did support abortions as a woman's choice. I would actually call myself an independent if I ever thought I would vote Democrat, but I don't think the party will ever bend to my issues.Re: I am curious about one thing
Date: 2005-06-25 05:20 am (UTC)