Posted on 06/23/2005 11:26:06 AM PDT by crushkerry
Democrats on Capitol Hill are demanding an apology from presidential advisor Karl Rove. What was Mr. Rove’s offense?
"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in 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." Citing calls by progressive groups to respond carefully to the attacks, Mr. Rove said to the applause of several hundred audience members, "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble."Why Democrats want to make a big issue of this is beyond me. During my time in the political trenches, I’ve learned a thing or two about fights you want to pick and those you want to avoid. This is one the Democrats should seek to avoid. Instead, their worst instincts have gotten the best of them and they are digging it.
I’ve enumerated six reasons what this is a horrible strategic blunder on the part of Senate Democrats (I’m sure there are more and if you have additional thoughts, please leave them in our “comments” section.) I suspect all this protesting too much will blow up in the Democrats face so explosively, they will begin to suspect one another of working for Rove very soon.
1. It’s true. While no Democrat literally offered therapeutic counseling to terrorists, they did make attempts to “understand” the terrorists. Just consider former President Bill Clinton's response to 911. He couched the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil as a response to the Crusades and other unrelated events:
Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless. Indeed, in the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple mound. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe soldiers walking on the Temple mound, a holy place to Christians, with blood running up to their knees. I can tell you that that story is still being told to today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it. Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery and slaves were, quite frequently, killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when significant numbers of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human and we are still paying the price today. Even in the 20th century in America people were terrorized or killed because of their race. And even today, though we have continued to walk, sometimes to stumble, in the right direction, we still have the occasional hate crime rooted in race, religion, or sexual orientation. So terror has a long history.Moreover, the immediate response from liberal groups was to demand the U.S. respond to the terror attacks of September 11 with "moderation and restraint."
2. It highlights a very serious image problem. In the political business we sometimes urge clients to “hang a lantern” on their problems. Running for office but you have a DUI on your record? It taught you a life lesson! You’ve since quit drinking and it brought you closer to Jesus. Really made you take stock of your life.
But in this case, the problem derives from a series of political positions and actions (or inactions) that put the Democrats at great odds with the mainstream of America. Because most high-level Democrats either supported the Bush administration's military response to 9/11 (both in Afghanistan and Iraq) or opposed it but kept quiet about it, they opened up a vacuum that was ultimately filled will hot gas from the want-wits in Hollywood, Howard Dean, and the moonbat fringes.
Meanwhile, we know for a fact this hurt Democrats because the 2004 election told us so. Among the 19% of the electorate that said terrorism was their number one concern, President Bush bested John Kerry by a whopping 86% - 14% margin. Mr. Rove is not alone in thinking liberals are soft on terror.
3. It’s a fairly obvious and lame attempt to retaliate for the Durbin drubbing. After insisting for a week that Dick Durbin was right and had no reason to apologize for his hateful comments (he compared Americans to Nazis), the Illinois Senator tearfully took to the Senate floor and pretended to admit that he was wrong. Ever since, the Left has been scrounging for a Republican moral equivalence. They tried to blow up Howard Dean’s recent comment in Boston in which the embattled DNC Chair said, “I don’t care if Dick Cheney likes my mother or not …” Only Dick Cheney didn't say anything nasty about Howard Dean’s mother, only that she probably loved her son. So they are digging a little deeper by going after Rove. What the Left is ignoring, of course, is that what Durbin said was offensive and incorrect. What Rove said is not offensive and is easily substantiated (see Clinton quote above.)
4. It’s beneath a U.S. Senator to attack a staff member, even one as highly regarded (and feared) as Karl Rove. Hillary Clinton wants to be the first female president of the United States. Meanwhile she’s going to dress down a staff member from the other party? C’mon!
5. It threatens to overshadow the original story. The Rove speech was reported, sure enough. But it was a minor one day news item. Senate Democrats have now turned it into the controversy of the week. That was stupid. Do they really want to spend a week talking about which party is tougher on terrorists? We just got done having a fight about whether or not Republicans and the U.S. military are too tough on terrorists detainees (and, based on recent polls, the good guys won that debate.) This makes no sense to me. It’s like the Republicans talking about which party is better at spending money on education programs. It’s not in their circle of credibility.
6. They are guilty of the same thing. People will abide aggressive partisan rancor, but they won’t abide hypocrisy. And for the Democrats to squeal like stuck pigs about this non-issue is the height of hypocrisy. How many times did John Kerry, for example, say President Bush’s response to 911 has made us less safe at home? About every excruciating minute. It was implied in his slogan, for crying out loud; “Stronger at home, respected abroad.” Don’t take my word for it, just listen to John Kerry himself:
"That is precisely what this administration has ignored. They looked to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bullied when they should have persuaded. They've gone it alone when they should have assembled a whole team. They have hoped for the best when they should have prepared for the worst. They've made America less safe than it should be in a dangerous world," Kerry said.For these reasons and more, the Democrats have made a horrible strategic mistake to contest Mr. Rove’s words. They have just confirmed in the minds of average Americans what they already believe: Democrats are not ready for prime time in the war against terror.
Ping
Why should he apologize for telling the truth?
Republicans only demand apologies when Democrats insult America.
Democrats only demand apologies when Republicans insult Democrats.
Very telling.
The entire Democrat Party is a "horrible strategic mistake."
I agree with your analysis
4. It’s beneath a U.S. Senator to attack a staff member, even one as highly regarded (and feared) as Karl Rove. Hillary Clinton wants to be the first female president of the United States. Meanwhile she’s going to dress down a staff member from the other party? C’mon!
What did Madame Mao have to say on about Rove regarding this?
bttt
They have the rats in their crosshares and they can't see it coming. Man o man the rats are seriously a bunch of amateurs.
"2. It highlights a very serious image problem."
That's really the one that sticks. A debate on who's better on Terror and National Security is EXACTLY what the Republicans want.
I agree. Also, that the 'rats screamed so loudly was a big mistake because Rove said "liberals" and not the 'rat party. Now, the 'rat party has branded itself as "liberals." I love it...
Why don't Liberals come out of the closet and openly declare their war on America so we can start the next civil war and get it over with...
An initial budget of $1 billion per year should be enough to start.
Why? Because Republicans had the gall to play offense, because Republicans are actually being effective.
Hit them harder.
The fact that the Democrats have the MSM on their side blinds them as to how the rest of America views them. Just because the MSM under-reports their treasonous comments, they think that regular Joe is too dumb to notice them...until election day. The day after election day they invariable scratch their heads and ask themselves why they haven't be able to "get their message across".
They don't realize that we have been listening to their message every single day...unfortunately for them!
I think Rove should apologize. He should say: I'm sorry liberal don't take seriously the need to defend this country.
Fortunately these guys are clueless. If it wasn't for the media they would win no elections. The GITMO whining was a disaster for them also.
Will keep Durbin from having to resign I bet
"Democrats only demand apologies when Republicans insult Democrats."
You nailed that one very precisely. Thank you, sir.
BTW, the tagline ain't bad either. ha.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.