Telling it like it is: Rove’s indisputable comments
Not surprisingly, Democrats have been hissing and screeching with the full-throttle intensity of a crazed woman pulling hallucinatory maggots out of her hair over recent, unapologetically candid remarks by deputy chief of staff Karl Rove.
The wide-eyed, forehead-vein-bulging fury and hysterical cries of hate speech of certain Democratic senators would lead one to believe that Rove must have staged a cross-burning and demanded that liberals be lynched, lashed and burned at the stake. However, as far as Democrats are concerned, Rove committed a far worse sin by doing what liberals hate the most, he told the truth about them.
Here’s what Rove said: ‘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.’
Sen. Chuck Schumer whined in a letter to Rove that ‘[i]t was a slap in the face to the unity that America achieved after Sept. 11, 2001.’ Schumer, along with Sen. Hillary Clinton and the Democratic senators from Connecticut and New Jersey feverishly demanded that Rove ‘immediately retract the unfortunate and divisive comments.’
At a news conference, the senators went so far as to insist that Rove should either apologize or resign. Sen. John Kerry said that not only should President Bush demand an apology from Rove, but that ‘frankly, he should fire him.’
By the liberals standards, it is a perfectly legitimate use of the First Amendment for degenerate, scum-sucking idiots to burn the American flag or for Howard Dean to call Republicans ‘a party of White Christians’ who have ‘never made an honest living in their lives,’ but when Karl Rove speaks his mind and summarizes the attitude of liberals to the war on terror (mildly at that), he is committing a hate crime and should be fired.
But are Democrats truly angry, or are they relieved? Answer: They are relieved. Relieved that they have encountered an opportunity to divert attention from Democratic Senator Rick Durbin’s recent comments comparing American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis.
But must they feel so threatened? Perhaps instead of attempting to alleviate their negative image by lambasting those who view them negatively, they might listen instead, and then contemplate changing their act so as not to warrant the criticism they clearly feel so threatened, discouraged and weakened by.
In his remarks, Rove was merely implying that liberals reacted to the 9/11 attacks by reflexively insisting that we resort to a phase of national introspection and attempts at diplomacy rather than retaliation. To be fair, there were no Democrats in either the senate or the house who voted against the Afghanistan operation save for Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) whose staffer informed me that she simply felt more diplomatic avenues should have been exhausted and more time spent contemplating what the response should be, the most common complaint among Democrats against Operation Iraqi Freedom (whether or not they actually voted for it.) Therefore, it must be taken into account that Rove mindfully used the term ‘liberals’ instead of Democrats.
This is because Rove was not referring to those in the Democratic Party, but those on the zealous anti-war left who have become such an integral constituency of the Democratic Party since George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign and whose contemporary dominance therein was evidenced by militant pacifist Howard Dean’s pre-Iowa caucus rise as well as his being elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee (one of the GOP’s more recent blessings).
Specifically, these constituents, as Rove described them, are those sympathetic to the cause of Dean, Michael Moore and MoveOn.org. To prove the point, on Sept. 13, 2001, MoveOn.org responded to the terrorist attacks with a petition urging President Bush ‘to use moderation and restraint in responding to the recent terrorist attacks against the United States, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction.’
These constituents are also the ones to whom Democratic senators like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton catered when they compensated for their authorization of Operation Iraqi Freedom by insisting that the president ‘rushed to war’ and failed to exhaust all the peaceful remedies (this despite the indispensable fact that every peaceful remedy had been exhausted over the course of twelve years and 17 repudiated U.N. resolutions.)
So why are Democrats so monumentally disturbed by Rove’s indisputable comments? For the record, Rove was not talking about the Democrats in particular, but the associated populace their party has clearly come to represent. The question is this: If Democrats are so immobilized by this colossal identity crisis they have suffered for the past four years that they have lost sight of who they actually represent, how exactly do they plan on ever winning another election?
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”