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.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 10:57 pm (UTC)Since I haven't read the speech, I can't say it is acceptable. I don't even know much about Karl Rove to say yes or no on the guy. I did watch That's My Bush the tv show, but that wouldn't be fair. Just bashing Democrats isn't nice just like bashing Republicans isn't nice.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 11:01 pm (UTC)Kerry wasn't trying to "defend" any sort of position. He was stating that Rove's lying, outrageous attack on the patriotism of Democrats was unacceptable. Kerry has nothing to defend there.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-24 11:14 pm (UTC)What Kerry quoted Rove as saying wasn't that "All Lithuanians are mentally retarded midgets." He quoted him as saying "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." I've already said that Rove was mistaken if he meant immediately afterward, but that the country is divided like this currently. And having been on the liberal side and having felt EXACTLY the way that Rove said liberals felt, I am having trouble seeing his statement as insulting. I felt that way. I felt we had no right to be in a war with Iraq. I didn't want to prepare for war. That wasn't an insult to my patriotism. It's just an over reaction to something said.
But I can understand why Kerry might be on guard with Dick what's his name shouting that Gitmo treats people like the Nazis and then he gets attacked for saying that. I see a huge difference though between Dick's statement and Rove's statements. And I don't see Rove's statement as trying to be a blanket statement. Again, I base all of this on the information that Kerry gave me to inform me on the situation so I have no idea what was actually spoken in the speech. So when I get a chance, I'll look.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-25 01:23 am (UTC)As far as I know, all the Democratic leadership was and is united in the belief that we need to hunt down Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda terrorists. The war in Iraq, on the other hand, had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda, and the evidence coming out of England lately indicates that Bush knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs, so yes, many Democrats are questioning why we're there. It sounds like you think that attacking Iraq had something to do with responding to 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Anyway, that's why it's insulting. The Democrats are insisting that we hunt down *Al Qaeda*, and to claim that that's somehow soft on terror -- and that attacking the wrong country is being strong on defense -- is insulting.