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.
Another Brilliant (and calculated) move by Rove.
bttt
Pray for W and Our Troops
You sure about that one?
some one should make this the new seal of the demoRAT party
More and more I wonder if Rove is the "Darth Vader" manipulator that the left always accuses him of being. Its as if the leftys are determined to see if they can completely ruin any chances of ever winning an election.
Perhaps, but eventually something will help the Dems.
The GOP can't keep winning elections every time and not lose eventually.
That may be 2006.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429085/posts
White House Defends Rove 9/11 Remarks After Dems Demand Apology
AP ^ | June 23, 2005 | Bryce Mursch
Posted on 06/23/2005 11:07:26 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
The White House is rejecting Democratic demands that Karl Rove apologize for saying liberals meekly offered "therapy" for the terrorists as a response to 9/11.
Press Secretary Scott McClellan says President Bush's top political adviser was just "telling it like it is." Rove delivered his blast a few miles from Ground Zero in New York, at a Conservative Party dinner, he said liberals sought "understanding" for the attack and Democrats called for "moderation and restraint" while President Bush saw it for what it was: a declaration of war.
McClellan says Rove wasn't getting personal, just describing different philosophies.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean calls Rove's remarks "divisive and damaging." Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid says Rove should apologize, or resign.
At a Senate hearing on Iraq, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton called on military leaders to "immediately repudiate" what she called "an insulting comment."
LOL...we're all sorry.
The RATS don't see the irony of condemning a political operative who calls them for what they are, while they stand by a Senator who insults our Military to the world. Lesson: you can defecate on the President, the Sec. of Defense, the Military, but don't dare call a Democrat a Democrat!
You know, I think you're right.
However, that was only to apologize to other countries about the existance of the US. Sort of the CIA of apology agencies.
I'm thinking internal, here, like the FBI.
By the way, has Sheets Byrd ever formally apologized for implying that Republicans in their promoting the nuclear option on judicial filibusters were acting like "Nazis"?
Another thing comes to mind: THE 'RATS ARE NOT DENYING THAT IT IS TRUE. LOL...
Does anyone take Reid seriously? What a baby.
The Dems remind me of my first wife: constantly demanding apologies for things when I had no idea what it was I had supposedly done to offend her, then beyatching that the apology didn't sound "sincere" enough (of course, it didn't: what coerced apology for an imagined offense could possibly be "sincere"?)
Note that I call her my "first wife." I eventually divorced her the way most thinking Americans are rapidly divorcing themselves from the increasingly-more-deranged and impossible-to-live-with Democratic Party.
Democrats don't apologize for their words, they just say they are sorry we, the commoners, were offended by those words.
You voted her off the island?
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.