Redstate

matters, and this proves it.

So basically the liberals he was talking about want him to apologize for telling the truth?  I don't think so.

Given the topic of where, why and topic of the speech, this is much ado about nothing.  Rather than being outraged and demanding apologies and resignations, the Dems would have done better to have said "this is what the mainstream liberals believe about the WOT, and we repudiate those who say X" but they didn't and they don't.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes. We want few regulations; they want more. Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs. We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government. Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society. We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don't. Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a "culture of life"; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

Here is the COMPLETE quote....

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to... submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the... terrorist attacks against the United States."

He then goes on to say that Howard Dean may not have agreed to our actions against the Taliban.  Well maybe not but he did PUBLICLY support it.  Not only that but he ALSO stated REPEATEDLY that Afghanistan should have been the priority throughout.  But how bout we paint him with whatever brush we have in our hand instead?

He then says that Al Jazeera broadcasts Durbin's remarks but there is little evidence that they have.  

I will say I liked his comparison of George Bush to Lyndon Johnson.  Seems fitting.

I think this makes it plain that the brouhaha is even more ridiculous than I thought before. That's a laundry list of astute observations. But...

There's Still A War Going On, Folks...

... to worry what the thoughtless are thinking.  Rove's a brilliant political strategist, but he's a cipher and a hack ideologically.  You pay attention to his blatherings on non-strategic issues (to the extent you pay attention to them at all) to feel rah-rah.  WFB he ain't.

Here, he said something unusally stupid.  The context doesn't improve it; Thorley's attempted explanation doesn't explain it.  IF Rove meant "Moveon.org" or "some liberals," he coulda said it then.  If he merely misspoke, he could say that now.  Otherwise, I'd sooner forget his stupidity than continue to argue about it.

Let's talk about something substantive.  Let's talk about ideas.  There's a war on, after all -- and Rove's stupidity (and the "resign now" left) ain't helping.

What silly, silly people.  

Gotta work on my reading comprehension!

Thorley's "incomplete" quote:


But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to... submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the... terrorist attacks against the United States."

Your "COMPLETE" quote:


But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to... submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the... terrorist attacks against the United States."

I need to ask: what's the difference?

conservatives, not specifically the GOP.  Every conservative I know, other than the compassionate conservative types are for those things, it is just right now, we have too many of the compassionate types, a president who is the compassionate type, and several very moderate GOP members (in the South they would probably be conservative Dems, not moderate Reps).  This has led to some steering away from the conservative position (which is one of the things that bums me with this adminstration and congress).

But he isn't speaking of party here, but of what the political identifiers stand for.

. . . politics is what is inhibiting us from making progress on more important issues such as Social Security reform, appointing strict constructionists to the bench, etc.  Rove made the point in his remarks that the opposition party has decided to define themselves in terms of just saying "no" to whatever we propose rather than offering an alternative (in contrast to say Newt Gingrich who came up with the Contract for America).

Another poster made the observation that Rove's remarks signaled that the administration was making the shift from softball to hardball.  If this does indeed signal a shift in tactics then I'm hoping we will start to Republicans go on the offensive on these issues rather than playing patty-cake and getting nothing done.

Afghanistan as primarily a law enforcement issue.  The fact that he wanted to wait for OBL to have a trial before commenting on his guilt and punishment speaks for that opinion.

I am bloodthirsty enough I am perfectly content with the "hunt them down and kill them" mantra, not "hunt them down, bring them to DC and put them on trial with lawyers, witnesses, full US constitutional rights and classified documents shared among all.

If they surrender, take them to Gitmo, give them their combat status tribunal, and if they did anything really nasty, do the military tribunal thing, and punish them severely.

here too.

It was a group of conservatives, they were there for a pep rally, not a balanced presentation.

Do you think they would have noticed or cared if Rove said "some" instead of just "liberals."

And frankly, the people he did name by name, pretty much fit the bill for what he said.

The only one that is out of line is the therapy issue, but I suspect that whole bit was meant to play as a joke anyway, not neccessarily something substantive.

I misread what he posted and someone missed something.

perhaps the Admin. was waiting for a SCOTUS vacancy to bring out the heavy artillery...

Wouldn't that be nice?

Chief Justice Miguel Estrada, anyone?

somewhere along the line we got caught up in the idea of a "just" war.

we had one. it was called world war ii. the germans were so atrocious -- the crimes against humanity they committed were so heinous -- that anyone standing up to them was pretty much righteous by default. and we were. so righteous were we in wwii that our judgment has been clouded ever since.

but we were attacked, you say.

yeah, and some 160,000 people have died in automobile accidents since then. but you don't see a "war on cars."

everyone was together when we headed into afghanistan to get bin laden. everyone. around the world.

but we let this administration bait-and-switch us to iraq before we finished the job we were rightly doing. and both republicans and democrats are to blame. all this bickering is pointless (though it should be said that it hasn't been so long since saddam was our ALLY in the region). now we're stuck in a place we really shouldn't be until we can get the situ under control.

the admin blew it and us with them -- bin laden should be in chains.

Good call on the SCOTUS, I completely missed the fact that the timing of Rove's remarks and the phony "outrage" from the Democratic leadership occurs right before Monday's big announcement.

that I see as a big danger for the GOP.  Namely that the current administration fits very poorly into the 'conservative' slot on my political pegboard.

It looks to me that some of the cause for GWB's eroding job approval numbers is that many who consider themselves conservatives are now looking for another option.

I just think that the battle to get him (or Scalia) to Chief AND get someone like Estrada on the bench would expend unnecessary political capital when we could just go for the jugular and do both in one fell swoop.

It's a waste of time to spend so much time debating Rove's remarks; or to have endlessly rehashed Durbin's remarks; or to stop every time Howard Dean says something partisan and silly.  I'm tired of outrage.  I'm tired of shouting.  I'm tired of Hannity, Colmes, Nancy Grace (I'm so tired of Nancy "disgraced prosecutor" Grace), Rove, Dean, Moveon, PowerLine, Malkin, et al.  I'm tired that every battle is portrayed as being between BushHitler and the Handmaidens of Saddam.  I'm disgusted with the fact that this Republican government can't control spending, win the war in Iraq, find bin Laden, pass Social Security reform, pass immigration reform (I belong to the McCain-Kennedy school, for the record), pass CAFTA, do anything more with tort reform, etc.

Nick Danger's comments on the other thread are dead on.  Focus on something substantive, create a bill addressing it (which was designed to pass, not to create more theatre), and get on with it.

If you can't get him appointed to Appeals how likely that you would be able to get him appointed the Supreme Court?

Not only that but the Democrats would definitely spin that to make it appear that Bush was intentionally be combative and was completely unwilling to find a moderate choice.  

...the entire point of the preceding few comments.

"heavy artillery" "playing hardball"...  notice what we're saying? Bush will do what it takes to make this happen, with or without a filibuster. Frist changed his tune on a Bolton vote after lunch with Bush lately. Methinks something is blowing in the wind and minority obstructionism is in someone's crosshairs.

Buckle Up.

Shoot I wouldn't mind another option.

I don't like my representative much (he is too moderate for me, but he is adored in my state, and I am stuck with him).  Shoot I don't like the other representative either for the same reasons, but I don't get to vote on him.

I am fairly content with my senators, although they could be more conservative.

But I think this is what is going to hurt the GOP-we have a big tent, but we are starting to compromise the message and water it down.  Sure some watering down is going to happen in any party that is trying to work together, but the "compassionate's" seem to have won the day, and the conservatives aren't getting too many bones-and the problem is that who really are out other options?  I am not libertarian enough to vote for them, and I haven't had a viable democrat to consider in years, so I just cast my votes and hope for a few bones.

I think they would rather hold back the dogs for the replacement fight.

Thomas I think they would bring out the attack dogs for, but I would love to see Bush get the courage to nominate him, and back him on the nomination to the fullest just to prove how insane the dems can be on the judge issue.

Thomas is an excellent justice, and I would love to see him get the nod.

REGARDLESS of that point I think there are about a half-dozen judges who are unconfirmable.  Estrada, Brown, Pryor, Owen.  Couple more probably.

Too much political capital would be necessary.  

That DOESN'T mean that the Bush Administration isn't looking to ram through a staunch Righty.  I just don't think it will be any of THOSE staunch Righties.

they committed atrocious war crimes.  As a matter of fact we were pretty content to stay out of the war, other than selling some weapons to Russia and the Brits.

We didn't join the war, until Japan dropped some bombs on us, and we first declared war on Japan, then Germany.

Even when we declared war on Germany we were still doing a lot of the blind eye thing in regard to the reports of atrocities coming out of Germany.  We ignored the plight of the Jews for over two years.

Yes Germany was a noble cause, but we don't need to rewrite history to make it appear we cared, when we didn't.

He did, after all, re-appoint a number of those folks after Dems thought they'd seen the last of 'em, darn-near making Teddy Kennedy's head pop. He stuck by them, and look, a bunch are on the bench.

With "the Deal," the Dems sold the farm on their (already thin) objections by allowing previously objectionable-on-the-merits nominees to pass, so long as they all didn't pass. So many cracks in that dike (and I don't mean women in comfortable shoes) and it can't hold back the pressure. "Extraordinary circumstances" will be invoked post haste, and the filibuster will die.

But I could be wrong. We shall see.

Don't get me wrong, I probably agree with him 80 plus percent of the time but Thomas is one of the more consistent jurists when it comes to issues of federalism such as recent decision on the Interstate Commerce Clause.  That plus Thomas would probably be able to serve longer no doubt in part to his wife for serving him a "heart-healthy breakfast" every morning ;)

If the Democrats want to oppose Thomas nomination as Chief Justice, I say bring em on.  This one is too important not to fight for.

The Chief Justice gets to pick who writes the majority opinion when s/he is in the Majority but other than that, doesn't carry that much more power than the associate justices in determining what the opinions will be from the court.

I think that there are enough Senators who realize this that they won't opt to try to filibuster who gets appointed as Chief Justice and worry more about who gets to replace a retiring justice.

The CJ is also the head of the whole Federal Judiciary. There's a lot of implicit authority there, including in requests to Congress, and such. It's a bit more than "Justice with Benefits."

is only part of the problem.  

And I think you assume much too easily that the nuclear option could be invoked in this situation.  A number of GOP moderates may be squeemish about voting in a hard core Righty.

Thomas is who I almost always agree with, and I would love to see the WH nominate him, and dare the dems to fillibuster and make hay over it.

Presides over the impeachment of the POTUS or VP, heads up the Judicial Conference of the United States (which is actually quite an important role), administers the inaugural oath, and serves as Chancellor of the Smithsonian.  However in so far as the battle over judicial nominees is focused around the decisions that the SCOTUS will or could make, I don't think that the Chief Justice has that much more power than an Associate Justice that it would be worthwhile to filibuster the promotion of an AJ to CJ.

Enough moderate Republicans will stay home on what you call "hard core Rightys."  Mostly because for those whom you would call "hard core Rightys," would be better described as "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas," to my uneducated-on-jurist-tendencies way of thinking. And I'll wager much that even Chafee/Snowe/Collins would be convinced to support a Scalia- or Thomas-like appointee.

"Hard ball" is played within the party, too.

[new] we were behind you     By: mcc410x

somewhere along the line we got caught up in the idea of a "just" war.

we had one. it was called world war ii. the germans were so atrocious -- the crimes against humanity they committed were so heinous -- that anyone standing up to them was pretty much righteous by default. and we were. so righteous were we in wwii that our judgment has been clouded ever since.

but we were attacked, you say.

yeah, and some 160,000 people have died in automobile accidents since then. but you don't see a "war on cars."

everyone was together when we headed into afghanistan to get bin laden. everyone. around the world.

but we let this administration bait-and-switch us to iraq before we finished the job we were rightly doing. and both republicans and democrats are to blame. all this bickering is pointless (though it should be said that it hasn't been so long since saddam was our ALLY in the region). now we're stuck in a place we really shouldn't be until we can get the situ under control.

the admin blew it and us with them -- bin laden should be in chains.

this has been "disappeared" twice, let's go for three.

somewhere along the line we got caught up in the idea of a "just" war.

we had one. it was called world war ii. the germans were so atrocious -- the crimes against humanity they committed were so heinous -- that anyone standing up to them was pretty much righteous by default. and we were. so righteous were we in wwii that our judgment has been clouded ever since.

but we were attacked, you say.

yeah, and some 160,000 people have died in automobile accidents since then. but you don't see a "war on cars."

everyone was together when we headed into afghanistan to get bin laden. everyone. around the world.

but we let this administration bait-and-switch us to iraq before we finished the job we were rightly doing. and both republicans and democrats are to blame. all this bickering is pointless (though it should be said that it hasn't been so long since saddam was our ALLY in the region). now we're stuck in a place we really shouldn't be until we can get the situ under control.

the admin blew it and us with them -- bin laden should be in chains.

Hell, I'm not even going to like what Bush is up to - but get up to something and stop this stupidity.  I'd rather fight an honest fight of ideas than just argue about meaningless crap all day.

Bushitler vs the handmaindens of Saddam...ROFLMAO!

If he had wanted to just talk about Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and MoveOn.org, he could have. Instead, he attempted to selectively hold them up as examples of liberals and liberalism in general. Sadly for Rove, this doesn't even hold up within his examples! Although the philosophy of liberalism does not require pacifism, it is not incompatible with it either; neither is it incompatible with waging war, as Howard Dean could tell you.

Of course, some of his remarks about conservatism are pretty unbelieveable as well--'curbing the size of government'? 'advancing what Pope John Paul II called a "culture of life"'? Please. I bet he wouldn't have dared say that when the Pope was alive, but of course it's no more appropriate now that the Pope is dead. Who knows, maybe by 'liberals' he really meant to say 'a few people in moveon.org', and maybe by 'we' 'conservatives' he really meant to say 'a few real conservatives who my administration has ignored and marginalized'. But somehow, I doubt it.

he says 'we'. He believes it, but his party and his administration doesn't believe it? Or they just can't manage to do it with their majority position? I'm not buying it. (it also doesn't help that he doesn't acknowledge any groups besides conservatives and liberals...)

was this representative just telling the truth or was he throwing out outrageous hyperbole..

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=Politicsarchive200506POL20050
623a.html

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who joined Pryce at the press conference, told Cybercast News Service that it "is just inconceivable and truly incorrigible that in the midst of the war, that the Democratic leaders would be conducting guerrilla warfare on American troops.

and if this is true I think it's probably a bigger outrage than the abuse claims...

"The American taxpayer is already providing accommodations for detainees, who are currently more comfortable than most of our men and women in uniform," Wilson added.

the term 'fiscal responsibility' and 'states rights' as well.

IMO, the 3 things I liked about the conservative side of things before this administration and congress were:

Smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and states rights.

You did critique the one Rove mentioned in a rather minimalized fashion by saying "we've lost a bit on that issue".

To me, the 3 issues I EVER agreed with conservatives on, and they are BIG issues, are the 3 I listed above.   The republican party is clearly as bad or arguably worse than the dems on all 3 of those issues, which is why I'm very opposed to the way things are being run now.

Stand in front of door.

Lean forward, ever so slightly.

Grasp door knob and turn.

Pull door knob as hard and fast as you can.

Release door knob and wipe blood from your nose - again!

Here's the link to her comments:

"While our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line each day to defend our safety and to protect our freedoms--I am sure the least they expect is the backing and the support of their leaders at home."

"To the contrary, what we've seen from Democrat leaders is a growing pattern of jumping at any chance to point the finger at our own troops--bending over backwards to promote the interests of terror-camp detainees while dragging our military's honored reputation through the mud."

"For Leader Pelosi and Senator Durbin, if prison-camp detainees are given anything other than pillow-top mattresses or lean-cut filet mignon--they're being treated inhumanely and our military is to blame."

"Is prisoner abuse a serious infraction? Yes."

"Do prison abuse allegations need to be investigated when they arise? Most certainly."

"But do we shut down an entire prison camp that holds hundreds of potential terrorists who aim to harm America based on a few, isolated allegations? No."

"It's a sad day when--as Members of Congress--we have to remind our colleagues that they were sent to Washington to represent the best interest of Americans--not foreign criminals, not would-be terrorists."

"Democrat leaders are embarrassing both themselves and the people they represent by treating our nation's military like a political football."

"While some have apologized for their damaging words, we cannot excuse what has become a pattern on the part of Democrat leaders of tearing down the efforts of our troops and providing fodder for our enemies."

"I ask Ms. Pelosi, Senator Durbin, Howard Dean and others--where are your priorities?"

The part about the "pillow-top mattresses or lean-cut filet mignon" was obviously a bit of rhetorical flourish but generally I think she's right in her characterization of the Democratic leadership.

Find us a (working) link to Congressman Wilson's full remarks in context (not just an excerpt) and I'll be glad to judge them accordingly.  I'm not accusing you of anything dishonest in the excerpts you posted but let's just say I've grown somewhat skeptical whenever a phrase here or there is put out in the news only to go back and read a few days latter that the remarks in question weren't quite what one may have thought.

politics is what is inhibiting us from making progress on more important issues such as Social Security reform, appointing strict constructionists to the bench, etc.  Rove made the point in his remarks that the opposition party has decided to define themselves in terms of just saying "no" to whatever we propose rather than offering an alternative

The dems have no power to stop ANYTHING from getting through the House.  How much good legislation has come from the house to solve the nation's problems?  Even in the Senate, even a halfway decent proposal would get approval from a few dems, thus passing it.  Yet no decent proposal to deal with any real issues has been presented.   Somehow, though, the republicans claim the dems are the party of no ideas.

The issues are:

Gigantic deficits, excalating war costs, indefinite war, repairing international relations, maintaining our country's infrastructure of bridges, schools, and other publicly funded institutions, high gas prices, low/non-existent job growth, decreasing wages (when gauged against inflation), medicare, high insurance rates, corporate abuse of citizens and the environment.

NONE of those issues have been dealt with reasonably, and Social Security doesn't need much fixing - how much financial planning do you do 35 years in advance?  How accurate do you think your projections are? Our congress can't even balance the next year's budget, its ridiculous for them to worry about S.S. 35 years in the future.  If anything needs to be looked at that far in the future its our national debt, our nation's infrastructure and funding scientific research.  If we maintain those things, the SS problem will solve itself through prosperity of the nation.

I haven't seen a lot come out of the congress to address those concerns.  Both parties are too busy playing "he said, she said".  The dems at least can fall back on the excuse (true or not) that anything they try gets blocked by the majority.  

Although both parties are to blame for the name game, its ultimately the republicans who hold the reigns of power, therefore they are the ones to be legitimately blamed for not tackling the real issues that americans are concerned with.  They're running all 3 branches of government in case people haven't noticed yet.   I don't give one iota of worry about whether my kid can pray in school or whether he'll burn a flag when he grows up, or whether some brain dead woman across the country is being taken off life-support.  Yet, thats all the republican majority seems to focus on.

I guess its ok, at this rate dems will win in a landslide the next few elections, and compromise will have to be the name of the game or nothing will get done.

From me too.

I sort of said something similar before I read yours, but I like yours better.

that I don't really care that much.  I mentioned them mainly for their zing value.  

Here is one link....

http://joewilson.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=29326

The other quote he provided to CNSnews which is hardly a card carrying memeber of the Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy.  

    "Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

    --Hermann Goering 4/18/46 (in prison)

Sorry, but no.  You are wrong.

In the text of Rove's speech, he begins somewhere around paragraph 30 to contrast conservatives and liberals.  Not MoveOn, Moore, and Dean, but liberals.

Liberals want more taxes.

Liberals want more regulation.

Liberals want a larger government.

Liberals want more litigation.

Unt so weite.

In this comparison, he clearly means "liberals" to refer, not to certain specific individuals or groups, but to folks who hold views on taxation, regulation, size and role of government, etc., that are to the left of center.  In other words, something like half the country.

After establishing this usage, he now goes on to contrast conservative and liberal attitudes toward national security, giving us this:

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.

No introduction of a new sense for the meaning of "liberal".  Same word, same context, same meaning.  MoveOn is the example he gives, but Rove does nothing to distinguish between them and the very many other folks who are, by his lights, "liberal".  If anything, he does the opposite, by imputing the partisan positions and rhetoric of MoveOn, Moore, and Dean to anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman.

So, nice try, but your reading of Rove's speech doesn't hold water.  Thanks for the link, however.

Cheers -

From the link you provided:

"Leaders of the Democrat Party continue to put the welfare of suspected terrorists before the needs of U.S. troops," said Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC). "After criticizing the action of our troops and underestimating their accomplishments, they have now announced the creation of yet another committee to investigate the conduct of American soldiers."

"Sadly, the creation of this committee is simply another example of some Democrat leaders trusting the words of terrorists over the proven decency of U.S. troops. The American taxpayer is already providing accommodations for detainees, who are currently more comfortable than most of our men and women in uniform. When will Democrats start focusing their efforts on strongly supporting our troops rather than justifying the outrageous claims of terrorists?

"Although I don't know the cost of the Democrats' latest endeavor, as a veteran with 31 years National Guard service, I am certain that the committee will report what the American people have known all along: the honorable men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces are treating detainees humanely, consistent with the Geneva Convention.

"Instead of appeasing prisoners who are intent upon killing American families, Democrats should trust and support our troops. As the father of a son who served in Iraq for a year, I strongly believe that its time my Democrat colleagues begin to put America first.

"In conclusion, God bless our troops and we will never forget September 11th."

I find nothing objectionable in this statement other than that he seems to suggest that the Geneva Convention has any relevance to the detainment of unlawful combatants.  Also I would probably have put my focus on how the last "independent" commission on 9/11 was turned into a partisan three-ring circus and there is no reason to believe that this one would be any different.

Conservatives believe in lower taxes; liberals believe in higher taxes.

Yet the lower tax benefits the wealthly at the expense of the rest of the population. Tax codes favor those with accumilated wealth as opposed to those that earn it day by day.

We want few regulations; they want more.

fewer regulations that favor corporate profiteering and greed, more laws for average citizens. The government should be the watchdogs of industry, instead, the current administration appoints industry lobbiest or former legal counsel to industries as heads of departments or senior officials that are suppose to oversee those industries. FERC, FCC, FDA, EPA, etc.. Scientific studies are cooked by said persons to reflect industries positions to decrease accountablities for damage they cause.

Conservatives measure the effectiveness of government programs by results; liberals measure the effectiveness of government programs by inputs.

No Child Left behind underfunded by $27 billion since inception with local school systems holding the bag... Dubyas Medicaid program advertised at $200 Million, then $400 Million, then just recently reassessed at over $1 Trillion (Pharmacuticals say thank you Bush), Recent Bankruptcy Bill will bring great results for the Credit industry ($$$=results), Recent Conservative leaning Supreme Court ruling taking away individual property rights in favor of private industry, Dubya says he'll capture Osama "Dead or alive", 3 years later, he doesn't even care about him (his words), Defense Science Board just released a study stating that Bush has NOT made us safer from terrorist, the war in Iraq has only isolated us and trained a new generation of islamic extremist.

We believe in curbing the size of government; they believe in expanding the size of government.

This is a myth. Review the last 20 years. Government and our national debt has always grown under republicans.

Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society.

Less litigious whereby common people have no recourse against corporations that put profits over the safety. Congressional Budget office adds a small fraction to costs such as health care, most increases are from drug companies.

We believe in accountability and parental choice in education; they don't.

Bush lied us into Iraq, not held accountable by Republican congress. Paul Bremer totally mismanaged the CPA in Iraq (lost $8 billion) receives Medal of Freedom, George Tenet receives Medal of Freedom for not preventing 911 and for supplying inaccurate intelligence to Bush (which is exactly what they asked for = cooked books), Rumsfield overruled Generals calling for less troops and equipment for Iraq war, continues to mismanage, troops STILL don't have needed equipment and armor, Marines told to call home and get armor from parents, he's still there... No child left behind gives you LESS choice, not more in education.. Tom Delay, 3 rebukes, but still in congress, ethics committee chair replaced with Delay backer, rules gutted. Republicans contract with America broken and forgotten.

Conservatives believe in advancing what Pope John Paul II called a "culture of life"; liberals believe there is an absolute unlimited right to abortion.

How many people have Bush's policies killed, in Afganistan, Iraq, Palestine, Dafur (from lack of action), lack of support for Stem Cell Research that could provide great advances in medical prevention of diseases, culture of life also deals with being good stewards of our environment, preventing waste, lessing polution, promoting conservation, which Bush won't do, cause he's in so tight with industry. I personally don't believe in abortion, but I also don't believe its my right as a human being to enforce my beliefs on others. The current administration is one of hate and divisiveness. They hate liberals, democrats, muslims, gays, etc. Jesus is love, God is a god of Love, Jesus ate and communed with Lepars and prostitutes, blessed are the peacemakers, Bush is not a peacemaker, he is a "War president." Truely ask yourself is what they stand for, what YOU stand for?

(I am a former 22 year republican and voted for my first democratic president in this last election.)

criticism of administration policy and the problems it has led to with criticism of the troops.

Its supportive of the troops to demand things like adequate armor, decent treatment of detainees, and investigation of high-officials (rather than grunts) when misconduct arises.

Hopefully a rational person understands how mistreatment of detainees (both legally and physically) leads to more hostility against our troops.   And convicting just grunts for fairly widespread prisoner abuse is VERY much being anti-troops.  Its clear that official policy led to the abuses, either intentionally or inadvertantly.  Or did 20-30 soldiers just independently all decide to abuse prisoners without their bosses knowing.

Given the number of very real problems that have occurred in fighting this war, its very unconvincing not to find any fault with the administration's policies.

There was an insightful comment here that went blow-by-blow through Rove's arguments...but now its gone. I'm a newbie...is that policy here, to delete comments? Or is it hidden?

I thought I'd add:

<i>Conservatives believe in making America a less litigious society; liberals believe in making America a more litigious society.</i>

<a href="http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1799">U.S.Businesses File Four Times More Lawsuits Than Private Citizens And Are Sanctioned Much More Often for Frivolous Suits</a>

he was speaking to conservatives, and the topic was the state of liberalism.

How do you address the state of liberialism, and not address what you at least perceive liberals as espousing?

and his son has served in Iraq, that he has some pretty strong footing to criticize from as well.

...that the moderators of this site are deleting discussion of what Rove said in this thread, particularly commentors who say nothing personal about other commentors, etc, nor do they attack Rove personally. So, I checked the Redstate.org posting rules:

<I>Pursuant to the mission statement, this site is explicitly meant to serve as a conservative and Republican community.</I>

Isn't it possible that this thread shows the problem with such a mission statement? Right now the Republican party -- at least, at its head -- is fundamentally un-conservative. Not "liberal" per se, as they aren't necessarily opposites.

Call it crony-conservatism.

He wants less litigation (against corporations, not among them, or credit companies suing individuals), and less regulation (for corporations, with more regulation for individuals), effective goverment (for corporations as in Medicare pharmaceutical industry supplement, but against individuals...)

Rove quotes John Paul II about a culture of life? And yet Bush is the least judicious overseer of the death penalty (and I mean the actual, criminal punishment in Texas) in the history of its modern usage. If you're anti-abortion, fine. But Rove quoting the Pope and pretending to mean it is like Howard Dean quoting Dobson.

I haven't voted Republican since Bush I, and I'm not about to start again. Not until we see some true conservatism, in the form of leaders who fundamentally understand that this country is a country of people, not corporations.

And if you're going to delete posts simply because they thoughtfully criticize Rove, I'd rethink that mission statement if I were you. It seems to me that conservatism is much less tolerable here than Republicanism.

I disagree with putting Sean Hannity in the same sentence as WFB Jr.

I don't. What this says to me is, "No, this was neither the writing of a prolific intellecual conservative nor the ranting of a right-wing talk show host." Putting them in the same sentence was meant to convey the spectrum of conservative voices.

From me, too, and I'm a (mostly) lurking liberal.

Comments like this are one of the reasons I read this site every day.  When things are going well, there are more than a few people writing about stuff that matters in thoughtful ways.  Even when I disagree (which is most of the time), I learn things.  Can't say that about most of the shout shows or the rant sites...

cipher

hack

blathering

stupidity

stupidity

stupidity

Then, you close off with your kicker statement of wisdom (wait for it)... Let's talk about something substantive.  Let's talk about ideas.

CUE THE DRUMS AND THE A-1O FLYOVER!!!

Ummm, did someone shut down the Redstate diary function, von?

Save us the elementary schoolyard insults.  If you have ideas, then screw up your courage, open up a blank diary dialogue and spell them out!

By talking about the attitudes of liberals after 9/11, and then by bringing up moveon.org's anti-war position and mentioning Howard Dean in the same breath, Rove did a good job of showing how ridiculous his own argument actually was. But did he notice or care, or was he just bringing up Howard Dean to selectively emphasize some other quality associated with him.

Dean isn't a liberal and that moveon.org isn't liberal.

IF they aren't what are they, and who exactly are the liberals?

What did you want him to say-honestly-that liberals have wonderful positions, and that all the conservatives in the room should switch parties?

By Karl Rove's definition, Dean can't a liberal--and yet, Karl Rove used him as a representative of the problems of liberalism. In fact, by his definition, there's an upper bound of about 4% to 8% of the population that could have been liberal after 9/11. Then again, by his definition, he and his administration isn't conservative, either. By his definition, a real conservative would be fiscally responsible; a real conservative wouldn't wage an unjust war; a real conservative wouldn't litigate around our court system; a real conservative would outlaw the death penalty. etc.

I want him to say that what he said was absurd on its face, which it was, and for him to deeply regret the slander and inaccuracies that he thoughtlessly spewed forth about a large segment of patriotic Americans. But seeing as how this was all apparently planned and scripted, I doubt there's much of anything he can say now. Maybe he could retire, get rid of all his worldly possessions, become a monk, and work towards some actual goals of self-reliance and minimalism. And perhaps on his way, he could stop by the Vatican, and beg forgiveness there as well.

"He then says that Al Jazeera broadcasts Durbin's remarks but there is little evidence that they have."

Here's your evidence:  Aljazeera.net:  "US senator stands by Nazi remark"

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who joined Pryce at the press conference, told Cybercast News Service that it "is just inconceivable and truly incorrigible that in the midst of the war, that the Democratic leaders would be conducting guerrilla warfare on American troops.

What Wilson has said is true.

What Durbin implied was false.

The only quibble with Joe Wilson is that I can't agree that it is inconceivable.  Norman Podhoretz predicted it (although he didn't mention any leaders by name) last year.

MoveOn.org is no more synonymous with Liberals than Log Cabin Republicans is synonymous with conservatives.  That was what was wrong about Rove's remarks:  he used a 'call for restraint in the response', which basically means 'let us not drop the A-Bomb on Afghanistan' to paint a very large swath of people who were very angry and wanted the perpetrators head on a platter as cowards.

Thorley compounds it by putting Dean on the same plane as moveon.org.  That's interesting because Dean supported the action in Afghanistan to get OBL.

Let us face it guys:  the move to conflate Iraq with the WOT was boneheaded, from the start.  We would not be talking about sinking approval ratings had we done two things:

1.  Asked Pakistan to either serve up OBL or stand by as we patrolled the NWFP
   
   
2.  Told Saddam Hussein that if he so much as twitched an eyebrow, we would blow him to smithereens.

Instead we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, went into Iraq and bought ourselves a royal CF.

Heaven's sakes, Ron Paul opposed the Iraq operation.  You don't get more conservative than him.

I realize Rove was talking to a 'conservative' audience and all, but if he is going to walk around saying 'we believe in small government' while his party expanded Farm subsidies and put on steel tariffs and joined the 'liberals' in creating the behemoth called the Department of Homeland Security;  if he claims 'we believe in a less litigious society' while his own boss sued Enterprise Rent-a-car for $1500; - his 'context' is all awry.

As for Durbin:  who put the soldiers in greater danger - Durbin or Rumsfeld who wanted to fight the war on the cheap and did so against the advice of his own Pentagon Commanders?  Who put the soldiers at risk - the idiots who did what they did at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo or the guy who spoke about it?

Conservatives act with fiscal resraint.  They don't turn surpluses into record deficit.  Conservatives believe in individual liberty.  They don't legislate private morality.  Conservatives believe in personal privacy.  They don't convene at midnight to pass a stupid legislation about a brain-dead woman.

I am a conservative from back when it meant 'to conserve what we have' not 'spend it all like drunken sailors in pursuit of chimera'.  Rove certainly did not speak to this conservative.

I am a liberal from when it meant 'to be free'. I am certainly not opposed to pursuing the perpetrators of 9/11 to the ends of the earth. I don't appreciate it when the response to 9/11 is the Patriot Act and invasive searches.  I am one who urges restraint, but don't dare confuse 'restraint' with 'inaction' and then excoriate me for it.  I would urge the same restraint if someone harmed my family, not because I am a coward, but because I believe in the rule of Law.

"Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the... terrorist attacks against the United States."

I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched the Twin Towers crumble to the earth; a side of the Pentagon destroyed; and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.

Moderation and restraint is not what I felt - and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will - and to brandish steel."

In my opinion, it is in times like these where a wise country should practice moderation and restraint!

Yes, almost ALL of us were hurt and angry.  But this is precisely the time where we needed to repond intelligently rather than merely lashing out.  

Certainly we had to respond with force, but it had to be measured and used wisely.

And, for what it is worth, I think that prior to the invasion of Iraq, we did that.

Al Jazeera, Reuters, what's the difference?

So the Democrats are guerrilla soldiers.  

You're right.  That isn't hyperbole.  That is fact.  Matter of fact I saw Ted Kennedy in camo brandishing an M-4.  

by politicisans?

Okay, I think we can all agree it isn't literal truth, but his comment was meant to invoke a word picture of what the dem leaders were doing.  He has a point, and I think given that he is a veteran, and his son has served in Iraq you can argue that he has a non political perspective that informs that opinion as well.

You can also of course argue that Durbin was just using a metaphor, but just the fact that he used three of the most murderous regimes as his point of reference is out of line.

but his comments regarding OBL and captured terrorists seems to indicate that he sort of viewed the military action as the ultimate SWAT team, since he advocates trials et al in the US courts with all the constiutional rights that entails-hence the "indictments" remarks.

Remember Dean was the one who took a pass on declaring OBL's guilt and possible punishment until he was tried and convicted, since he believes so strongly in the innocent until proven guilty thing.  Which his fine on his part, but his opinion is telling in this regard at least in that he views this as more of a police action than a military one.

Libertarian than Republican/conservative, hence the nutty views on currency, freedom of information, foreign policy, etc.  He does fight the good fight though so it's hard not to love the guy.

You have access to his mind now?

So I guess your problem is that he lumped Howard Dean in with MoveOn.org and Micheal Moore? Or is it that he characterized MoveOn.org as representative of Leftism?

And if MoveOn.opg, Micheal Moore, PFAW etc. are not part of the Democrat coalition, what were they doing at the Democrat National Convention in November?

I am a former 22 year republican and voted for my first democratic president in this last election.

Nobody here was born yesterday, chief.

MoveOn.org is no more synonymous with Liberals than Log Cabin Republicans is synonymous with conservatives.

I'm sure you didn't type this with a straight face.

"Soldier" implies loyalty.

I would never characterize Kennedy or Durbin or Pelosi or Schuster or Dean or Kerry as "loyal".

Guerilla: A person who often, operating in small bands, attempts to harass and undermine the enemy.

Members of the Democrat Senate fit that definition just fine, you just have to remember that for liberals "enemy" means "US".

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!

A Great Republican once said this, and it remains true today.

who said that, but I disagree with the statement.  There is such a thing as making a problem worse while having the best of intentions.

However, I do wish many of us would learn from some of the other things that this statesman said, espcially statements concerning religous liberty, gay rights ("one doesn't have to be straight...one just needs to be able to shoot straight") and the like. :-)

Trivia:  a well known current Democratic senator and possbile 2008 presidential candidate open supported him when he ran in 1964.  Which one?

Yes, almost ALL of us were hurt and angry.  But this is precisely the time where we needed to repond intelligently rather than merely lashing out.  

Certainly we had to respond with force, but it had to be measured and used wisely.

What we did was measured and intelligently and wisely applied. If we had simply lashed out large parts of the Middle East would be glowing for another thousand years.

What we did was measured and intelligently and wisely applied. If we had simply lashed out large parts of the Middle East would be glowing for another thousand years.

end snip

From 9-11 up to the Iraq invasion, I agree with you.

. . .do we have any particular reason to believe that Justice Thomas would be a good CJ?  My observations suggest to me that Justice Scalia would be a bad fit for the job (too confrontational and rather nasty to those he disagrees with), whereas it was clear before Chief Justice Rehnquist was elevated that he had excellent people skills and could get along well with even those who despised his views.  Justice Thomas is rather famous (or notorious, from the POV of a lefty who is still bitter over the fact that he's on the USSC in the first place) for being quiet--there's not much available evidence one way or another to tell us what kind of Chief Justice he'd be.  To be honest, I'd prefer it if a well-respected appellate jurist was selected directly to fill the position directly--they'd be less of a target than Justice Thomas would be in confirmation hearings (do we really want to have to see Catherine MacKinnon screeching away as a talking head or witness any time soon?).

whats with all the hidden posts? One of my post disappeared. No rules were violated and there was no profanity. Is the truth that hard to take, that you have to hide it?

This says it all..

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

-Hermann Goering 4/18/46, when the gig was up

Is it any different from what the current administration is doing today?

Without invoking the Nazis?