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.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 03:20 am (UTC)I am sorry that things came across as know it all. I was actually researching the questions because I don't know everything. I thought people were interested! Not trying to disprove me. I'm sorry I didn't understand that, but written communication is just that way. And there aren't any smilies in here that wouldn't just be insincere looking.
I can appreciate not having dealt with a lot of people and just wanting things your way. That's fine! It's your journal! I'd love to continue reading your journal if you want to create a filter to exclude me. I've taken steps to avoid things like this in the future. Earlier this week, I made a new filter for people who could understand what I meant without the confusion. Nothing against you at all! After all, it's LJ and it's supposed to be fun! So I understand wanting to avoid confrontation or even seeming confrontation when reading it. I think things may be ok. I think things which could be taken as me doling out know it all truths have been filtered away. They aren't what people need to see because they will be taken the wrong way even if it is my journal.
I'd hate to lose you as a friend, but I understand your reasons.
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 03:33 am (UTC)It hurts my feelings that she can't always just be honest and say what she says.
The thing is, at least for me, is there has just been this really radical change in the posts on your journal and that's a main reason why I didn't want to say anything before when I first read this entry. And I know a lot of people that have similar beliefs that you do and have had very bad experiences with them with regards to this same exact subject. So in the past I have just written people off if they were anti-gay in anyway. (I didn't mean that to rhyme, really) I've taken a look at myself and wondered what it is I may be missing by doing this. I have asked myself a lot of questions because honestly, being bi and supporting GLBT is a HUGE part of my life. I am not as active in it as I would like to be but it is still HUGE to me and so it is very very hard for me to be friends with someone (even if they are good people) if they have any anti-gay sentiments. But like I said, maybe I'm missing out on something so it's really something I have to work on myself.
I can't obviously speak for your best friend but I would hazard a guess that she doesn't want to hurt you, which is why she is working it out for herself. :\
Re: A different point of view perhaps
Date: 2005-07-01 04:27 am (UTC)I can definitely understand that there are a lot of people who say one thing and do another. Who claim to be Christians and then they are out there hurting people. I can definitely understand that.
And obviously I don't want you to have to create a filter, but I was just offering suggestions. That one is pretty silly, but I couldn't think of anything at the time. I do have filters on my journal now so that people won't feel so intimidated by my beliefs. I wanted to share them, but I think I need to establish a base for who the new person I am is and what to expect before I start saying what I believe. And I'm sorry about that. My fiance and I communicate through the journals so I wasn't thinking and just had the stuff as public or friends only instead of private for the two of us or what have you. Hope you aren't too upset because I had never meant to stress you out.