Thursday, June 23, 2005

Rove Should Be Fired

Marshall Wittmann is calling for Rove to apologize. Apparently, so are a number of Democratic Senators, like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. But an apology doesn't go far enough. Karl Rove must be forcibly ejected from the White House.

You may be asking yourself, what the hell is he talking about? Here's what Karl Rove had to say last night about the response of Democrats to the 9/11 attacks.

"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," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State.

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."
What a vulgar, slanderous liar. It's pretty easy to debunk his vile revisionist history, too. Check the voting records. Three days after the attacks on September 14, Congress voted "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." Two hundred and four Democrats voted for the authorization. One progressive independent who caucuses with the Democrats -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- also voted for the authorization. Only one Democrat, Barbara Lee, voted no on the bill, citing what she referred to as the "overly broad powers" the authorization granted the President. In the Senate, a companion bill was passed the same day, with every Democratic member voting yes.

Where were the calls for moderation and restraint? Where are the calls for therapy and understanding for the brutal murderers?

The calls for moderation and restraint came from all decent people -- President Bush included -- when reports started coming in of Muslims and non-Muslim Middle Easterners and Asians being physically assaulted by vicious racists for nothing more than the color of their skin. Sikhs, Muslims, and even Christians were murdered by thugs who equated their Middle Eastern looks with terrorism. So were the calls for moderation and restraint unwarranted? Of course not. They weren't unwarranted when they came from the President and they weren't unwarranted when they came from Democrats. Karl Rove should be ashamed of himself for suggesting otherwise.

And the calls for therapy and understanding? Well, I'm reaching here, trying to be magnanimous, but I'll assume that Rove is referring to the opinion that, in addition to smashing al Qaeda, the fight for the hearts and minds of young people across the Muslim world must also be won to prevent future generations from growing up to become new Mohammed Attas. Does this count as "therapy and understanding"? I guess if you're some kind of Neanderthal, sure. But to most people, this is just smart strategy. And again, I don't think this opinion was held purely by liberal Democrats.

An apology from Karl Rove is not enough here. Someone who would say such insulting things about fully half of the voting public -- that we don't believe in protecting this nation from harm -- has no business working in the White House. And as for New York Governor George Pataki, who was also in attendance at the event and said nothing when Rove spewed this venom, he's certainly proven himself too much of a political and moral coward to continue in his own job, much less run for even higher office.

UPDATE: White House spokesman Scott McClellan's response to Rove's comments is that Rove was "telling it like it is" and that the problem isn't Rove making slanderous claims, but that Democrats don't want to defend our philosophy. Well Scotty, it's a little hard to defend a philosophy that isn't really yours.

Is it my philosophy that terrorists should be offered therapy instead of being brought to justice or killed? Hell no! But Karl Rove says it is, and in Bushworld, that means I'm obliged to defend said philosophy? That's insane. Period, point blank, in-sane.

So how about this? Scott McClellan is a pervert who believes in sex with animals. What's that? Scotty wants me to apologize for saying something so outlandish? Why should I? I'm just telling it like it is. It's not my fault if Scotty can't defend his philosophical belief in beastiality...

Add Scotty "puppy love" McClellan to the list of Bush staffers I want to see on the unemployment lines.

UPDATE II: Okay, the last bit was clearly a joke aimed at making a point. But still, how can Democrats be expected to follow political rules that don't follow reality? It's crazy. And the way the White House and the GOP has backed Rove is actually disturbing. It doesn't make me angry. It honestly scares me. I mean, Rove is spewing garbage like this, GOP Rep. Joe Wilson is claiming that Democrats are "conducting guerrilla warfare on American troops," the media is repeating the lies about Dick Durbin's Senate speech, O'Reilly's calling for mass imprisonment of Democrats... what the hell is going on?

I've got to agree with conservative blogger John Cole on this. The whole thing is getting disgusting. The Democrats aren't innocent in this, but they're certainly not the main culprits. Over the last few weeks, the political scene in America has descended to such a point that I find myself struggling to even cover it anymore.

Now please excuse me while I go puke.

posted by Scott | 6/23/2005 | |

Monday, June 20, 2005

Catching Up

The move is done. The unpacking is underway. The cable has not yet been installed and that means no internet. Continue to expect few updates from me for the next week or so. To my loyal readers who keep checking the site, thank you so much.

Okay... here's some info for you.

State of 2008

Joe Biden's running for President. I have something of a soft spot for Biden. Why? I have no idea. Maybe it's because he seems like such a nice guy. But I don't support him for President. Especially not after supporting and voting for the loanshark credit industry's bankruptcy bill.

There's a distinct possibility that the Presidential nominees of both major parties in 2008 will be former Governors of the Commonwealth of Virginia -- Democrat Mark Warner and Republican George Allen. Both are young, both are popular at home, and both are seen as serious players for the nomination by both their parties and the punditry. According to a Rasmussen Reports poll, if the two were nominated by their parties, Warner has a slight edge among Virginia voters, with 46% support to Allen's 41%.

Likely 2008 contender General Wesley Clark has signed on as a Fox News military/foreign affairs analyst. I'm not sure what he's up to, but he's both a likeable guy and a capable debater, so if he wins any fans in the Fox audience, he's got a leg up for the 2008 general election. But how does being a Fox News employee play in the Democratic primaries?

State of the Senate

Last week, SurveyUSA released a comprehensive list of approve/disapprove numbers for the US Senate. Things look pretty good for Democrats, with an average approval rating of 59% and a disapproval of 30%. The Republicans were a little worse off, with approve/disapprove numbers of 54%/33%. The even better news is that only four Democratic Senators were giving approval ratings of below 50% -- Debbie Stabenow of Michigan (48%), Bill Nelson of Florida (47%), Mark Dayton of Minnesota (46%), and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey (42%). Dayton has announced he will not run for another term and it's quite unlikely that Lautenberg -- called in as a last-minute replacement for Bob Torricelli -- will run again, already having retired from the U.S. Senate once.

On the GOP side, a much larger fifteen Senators came in under the 50% mark. Those Senators are Jon Kyl of Arizona (49%), John Ensign of Nevada (49%), Wayne Allard of Colorado (49%), Jim DeMint of South Carolina (49%), Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (49%), Jim Talent of Missouri (48%), John Sununu of New Hampshire (47%), Jim Bunning of Kentucky (47%), Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania (45%), James Inhofe of Oklahoma (44%), Mike DeWine of Ohio (44%), Mel Martinez of Florida (43%), Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (43%), Richard Burr of North Carolina (42%), and John Cornyn of Texas (40%). Perhaps more importantly, six of these GOP Senators are serving their first term, traditionally the most vulnerable time for a member of Congress to be voted out of office.

None of these Senators is polling lower than 40%, which is really the number to get excited about, but a few are getting very close. And the more Democrats work at spreading the word about the increasingly unpopular GOP/Bush/DeLay agenda, the further these GOP numbers will sink.

posted by Scott | 6/20/2005 | |
social security
There Is No Crisis: Protecting the Integrity of Social Security
Amazon Honor System Click Here to Donate Learn More
reading room