Support




Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Powered by
Movable Type





Rove's Remarks: It's Just Too Easy

Bush is, of course, standing by Rove's statement.

Look, his statement has the unfortunate property of being true. After 9-11, many liberals, though not all, reflexively went into "why do they hate us?" mode and speculated upon the myriad ways America could change its behavior and dole out international welfare to pay terrorists off.

They were also pretty down on the whole "war" thing, and in fact often recoiled from using that word. They were in favor of a "response" to mega-terrorism, but not a "war" on mega-terrorism.

All? Of course not. Not all. Peter Beinert of TNR is and was strongly patriotic and favored a muscular military response. Christopher Hitchens -- a contrarian of the left, and yet still of the left in most ways -- was eloquent in championing America and calling for the obliteration of its enemies.

And of course not all (or even most) liberals are unpatriotic. Although it pains me to say it, I have little doubt, for example, that Aaron Sorkin, producer and writer of the West Wing and screenwriter of A Few Good Men, is quite patriotic about America. A love of America drips from his writing, even though, of course, that is love of America's potential as a liberal bastion. He's a dickhead and a crackhead, but he does love America.

And there are many, many liberals who feel similarly.

But not all. A large number of liberals -- or perhaps left-liberals, more accurately -- view America with disdain sometimes bordering on contempt sometimes bordering on outright hatred. They see America as a positive force for evil in the world, and they're not shy about saying so.

And the Democratic Party, while not endorsing such sentiments exactly, uses anti-American "code words" (you know, like those racist "code words" conservatives are chaged with using) to communicate their broad sympathy with the America-hatin' left while retaining plausible deniability.

Witness Dick Durbin. Durbin could have made his point using language that left little doubt about his love for America -- he could have simply said that America is the greatest moral force in the world, and that we should not taint ourselves by being anything less than that, even dealing with those who frankly deserve it -- but he didn't. He compared our troops to the Nazis, Soviets, and the Khmer Rouge.

I think liberals often believe there's a tension between patriotism and the capacity for an intelligent critique and healthy sketpicism about one's country. They don't feel comfortable praising America, because, they think, such praise undermines their central complaints about the American system. Many liberals feel they cannot simply say "America is the greatest country in the history of the world" without hurting their agenda for change and "progressive social justice."

But that's nonsense. Conservatives have all sorts of gripes about America -- indeed, on some days, after some Supreme Court decisions, we seem to do little else but grouse about this country -- but we have no problem declaring, as full-throatedly as possible, that despite this country's problems, it remains a beacon of freedom and hope. No matter how annoyed we might become at our government or by the PC regime which seems to run the country, we do not hesitate to praise America.

Why can't the entire left do the same? As I've said, there are many on the left who are strong patriots (even if they love a different version of an idealized America than conservatives do). Without doubt, they have what they consider to be strong complaints about America, but why is it they are so shy about declaring their love for this country, warts and all?

Until they're able to overcome this reflexive anti-patriotism, this rather hair-triggered response to perceived "jingoism," they can continue expecting conservatives -- and the voting public at large -- to question their love of country. If many liberals choke on any words of praise for America, it can hardly be surprising to them that people seem to notice this, and guess (quite rightly) that maybe many liberals despise this nation.

And they can expect some vicious parodies, too. Like The Therapist's mock-news article, in which Democrats complain that Karl Rove didn't temper his remarks by slamming American troops.

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM




Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Oh, I think Rove should definitely apologize. But I think it should be in the manner of Judge Roy Bean's apology for calling some of the newly "respectable" ladies in town "whores"

I understand you've taken exception to my calling you whores. I'm sorry. I apologize. I ask you to note that I did not call you callous-ass strumpets, fornicatresses, or low-born gutter sluts. But I did say whores. No escaping that. And for that slip of the tongue, I apologize.

Posted by: OCBill at June 24, 2005 12:14 PM (bN6S/)

2 Well said.

Posted by: brak at June 24, 2005 12:14 PM (OuLOj)

3 Gee...

You don't think Karl had this planned out or anything like that, do you? It was purely coincidental that he not only had done the research to prove the point he was making, but then shared the wealth with those who would no doubt have demands that they either support or condemn the comments.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it just might be a duck. And if it talks like a surrender monkey, and agitates like a surrender monkey, it might just be a surrender monkey.

Call them on it. Question the patriotism of the statements. Question their support of such defeatest rhetoric and the sources of it. Make them wear the albatross of aiding and abetting the enemy, or make them renounce such.

Da_Wiz Sends

Posted by: Outlaw_Wizard at June 24, 2005 12:18 PM (surHd)

4 He must have hit close to the mark to get them all riled up like that.

He should call a news conference to "explain and clarify" his remarks, and then balst 'em again!

Posted by: Iblis at June 24, 2005 12:33 PM (9221z)

5 Too many people are comparing Rove's remarks about "liberals" with statements made by "MOVE-ON dot ORG".

On behalf of Mr Rove and speaking for my faction of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, I would like to apologize. If anyone associated with MOVE-ON was offended by being reminded of their statements made during the horrible days between September 11, 2001 and the subsequent destruction of the Taliban, I would assure you Mr Rove's remarks were not intended to be offensive. Nor were they directed at MOVE-ON. Mr Rove was only refering to the signatories of the "Not In Our Name" (formerly, "Free Mumia") petition. Mr Rove, perhaps mistakenly, felt at the time of his remarks that the NION folks were "liberals" and that such liberalism was driving their objections to anti-Taliban actions. If he was mistaken, he apologizes.

Posted by: Pouncer at June 24, 2005 12:37 PM (wSBsc)

6 GROAN

I had forgotten all about Not In Our Name, Pouncer.
Good one!

Posted by: lauraw at June 24, 2005 12:52 PM (v4iO8)

7 Posts like these are why I'm glad I look to Ace of Spades to tell me what to think.

Now go off on the Kelo decision. I'm thinking we use the decision in red states to grab abortion clinics with eminent domain and turn them into Starbucks.

Posted by: Jamie at June 24, 2005 12:54 PM (1hRqD)

8 Rove baited these guys and they bit. He knows these clowns just can't help themselves.

Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, in a letter to Rove co-signed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Democratic senators from Connecticut and New Jersey, called the presidential adviser's speech "a slap in the face to the unity that America achieved after Sept. 11, 2001."

Yup, Rove hooked 'em good. Now all the Republicans need to do is print a list of nasty, divisive comments made in the last year from Dean, Reid, Pelosi, and Durbin and ask the simple question: "Is this respectful of national unity? Where was Hillary Clinton when these things were said?"

Also notice that Rove used the word "liberal" when making his criticism, ensuring that every offended Democrat self-identifies himself as such when stepping forward to complain.

Once again Rove is about ten steps ahead of the opposition. For such an intellectual and nuanced bunch, the Dems sure have a hard time keeping up.

Posted by: The Warden at June 24, 2005 01:16 PM (uTE6p)

9 Most liberal discomfort with something so common as patriotism comes not from actual ideals but simple intellectual vanity. It's considered "sophisticated" in many urban settings to dump on things like flag-waving or church-going or small town living as provincial and hickish; something akin to cow tipping or tractor pulls. Look at the hysterically uninformed horseshit coming from rich celebrities; many of whom have never done something so tacky as mowing their own yard or changing a tire. Urban libs would much rather sip overpriced coffee while they wallow in their own shallow pretentiousness. They simply aren't comfortable with sentimental things like "patriotism" or "simplicity" or "testosterone". That's for the fly-over rednecks.

Posted by: UGAdawg at June 24, 2005 01:18 PM (alGm/)

10 Well said. I always thought it an interesting dynamic that conservatives criticize government relentlessly on the domestic front while liberals urge more and more government. Yet as soon as the conversation becomes international in scope, liberals suddenly despise that same government and conservatives tout it as the force for freedom in the world. If our government is so evil, why should we entrust it with our retirement or the education of our children?

Posted by: Ranting Raven at June 24, 2005 01:21 PM (5UO9n)

11 The comparison between Rove and Durbin the Turban just reflects that the Democrats care about appearance more than substance.

Posted by: Michael Williams at June 24, 2005 01:40 PM (1jg0c)

12 Ace, one observation that I had the other day (and I saw echoed on NRO this morning)--

Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the Democrats reflexively get defensive when Rove attacks *liberals*? But the New York Times said there were no liberals in the Democratic Party, only moderates? Isn't Hillary! a moderate?

Rove's statement was the political equivalent of saying "Homo says what?" And all the Dems said "What?"

HIGH-larious.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at June 24, 2005 01:41 PM (y1hCN)

13 When liberals cry about how united we were after 9/11, they really mean we were united in grief, in mourning and sorrow for the dead and their suffering families, in our victimhood.

When we did something about it, that all went out the window. Well screw that. Schumer and his pals can keep it.

Chuck is right about one thing though, it is absolutely a slap in their face. A well placed one.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 24, 2005 01:54 PM (pzen5)

14 Between this true statement, the crazy crap coming out of Dean and Durbin the past few weeks, and the Kelo decision, it provides good ammo to support the President's nominees to the SC, if the expected vacancies come up next month.

Rove, you genius SOB

Posted by: brak at June 24, 2005 01:58 PM (OuLOj)

15 Come on now Dman. Get real.
Dems leaving the party? You must be mad.

What more inspiring message is there to draw people to your side than 'This country sucks and so do you!'
LOL

I credit the large leftish protests (still not sure why they were protesting the US after WE were attacked) for 'raising awareness' and 'challenging public perceptions' about the Republican Party.

Posted by: lauraw at June 24, 2005 02:07 PM (v4iO8)

16 It's a trap!

Posted by: Ackbar at June 24, 2005 02:10 PM (OuLOj)

17 Jamie,

Fantastic idea. I'll have the Mocha Latte!

Posted by: BrewFan at June 24, 2005 02:19 PM (Byr3j)

18 "Homo says what?"

LMAO

Posted by: Whatnot at June 24, 2005 02:31 PM (ycKg/)

19 I know I, and most of the readers here, are firmly against cloning. I'm beginning to think we need to make an exception. Karl, can we have a blood sample?

Posted by: TheDude at June 24, 2005 02:58 PM (47UUL)

20 ya know.....Karl was probably having a real boring day. Remembered...oh sh*t, gotta give that speech tomorrow night. I wonder what would happen if........
Nah...it'll be too easy.....what the hell....I'm bored......

Posted by: Richard Cook at June 24, 2005 03:04 PM (Km34P)

21 To simplify the above entry:

"What?"

Posted by: TheDude at June 24, 2005 03:43 PM (47UUL)

22 QUAGMIRE !!!

Oh, you've made me so happy, Cain!
I'm-uh gunna go home an' dance barefoot on the porch tonight, jus' fer yoo!
That's my most favoritest word ever, 'cept fer PIE.

Posted by: lauraw at June 24, 2005 03:45 PM (v4iO8)

23 Dude,

You beat me to it.

Posted by: Rocketeer at June 24, 2005 03:47 PM (GFaLW)

24 Look at me! I am so brilliant and my ideas are so right that all I can do is throw recycled insults and tired cliches at you pathetic neocons and then try to link-whore my way into some traffic!

Then, of course, I undercut my own brilliance with a spelling error and an inability to code a simple HTML link!

I am...MOONBATICUS!

Posted by: Not Quite Cain at June 24, 2005 03:47 PM (tFDFF)

25 Hell, I could distract that goober with a pretty colored balloon.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 24, 2005 03:49 PM (pzen5)

26 lauraw,

Quagmire is just my fifth favoritist word, right behind "Jeebus," "chickenhaws," "wingnut" and "avove." It ranks above pie, though.

Posted by: Rocketeer at June 24, 2005 03:49 PM (GFaLW)

27 Moonbatica Speciosa var. 'purpurea': Cultivar of the wild form, florid cheeks and ass of a baboon; ineffectual and amusing surprise attacks; charming, producing small clumps here and there throughout the blogosphere. Highly recommended for interest and diversion as part of a comments thread.

Posted by: lauraw at June 24, 2005 03:55 PM (v4iO8)

28 !

Rocketeer knews fahve werds!!
Yew mus be wonna dem college pukes, aincha?

Posted by: lauraw at June 24, 2005 03:57 PM (v4iO8)

29 Cain, I think you may be on the wrong site.

This site may be more suitable.

Have fun!

Posted by: Slublog at June 24, 2005 04:00 PM (tFDFF)

30 lauraw, don't be silly. Me no smart. According to Dean, that reason for me be Republican. Also, me no work honest day in life.

Ungh. Duhee.

Me go now. Just mess on self.

Posted by: Rocketeer at June 24, 2005 04:08 PM (GFaLW)

31 You want to see some liberal self-congratulatory "I'm so much smarter than all of you" BS? click here.

To see James Lileks tear the commentary into tiny little shreds, visit the Screedblog.

Posted by: Slublog at June 24, 2005 04:16 PM (tFDFF)

32 Rick Moran/Rightwing Nuthouse sent me over here. Darn glad he did. Questioning the left's patriotism is too easy when all they do is HATE HATE HATE with no ideas.

The problem I see is that liberals (the real nasty ones) simply hate Bush too much to see the principles behind his actions - and how hypocritical they are in rejecting many of them simply out of political expediency. CAFTA, for example. Disagree with the actions on principle if you must, but not simply because you hate the president. But DON'T go back on your core ideals of helping the poor in our hemisphere, touted by them during the 80s and Reagan's "warmongering" In El Salvador, simply to thwart another Bush agenda item.

Until they change this loony behavior, they'll keep "hating" themselves into little puddles of insignificance. The voters keep saying so.

I posted on this today vis a vis dissecting Krauthammer's and Ignatius' WaPo columns.

Posted by: The MaryHunter at June 24, 2005 04:19 PM (SRaIZ)

33 That was a very insiteful post.

I think liberals often believe there's a tension between patriotism and the capacity for an intelligent critique and healthy sketpicism about one's country. They don't feel comfortable praising America, because, they think, such praise undermines their central complaints about the American system.

This is quite true, the term "patriotism..." evokes an reflexive response of Samuel Johnson's,"...is the last refuge of a scoundrel." We fear that a muscular appeal to patriotism will lead inexorably to the all too common mantra of "Love it or leave it." and other non-reflective attempts to shout down any critique of our country's actions.

Another part of this problem is that those on the right who garb their ideology in patriotism DO try to shout down those on the left who attempt to wear similar clothes. Ace has done this to me time and again. And any critique for US actions gets slammed by the left as "America hating" and"troop hating", instead of getting discussed in a civil manner. It gets so that we on the left feel more and more alienated from the idea of patriotism, and such alienation makes it all the harder to speak of issues in patriotic terms.

But really, what could better evince a love of country than to work to make it better?

Posted by: vonKreedon at June 24, 2005 04:19 PM (hF0Vm)

34 vonK, you've got a point. But I think I've said it here a thousand times: We're exhausted. Your somewhat reasonable arguments get lost in the strident blather of your ideological friends. In order to really be heard, you have to do better than recite the same tired crap we hear from the Lunatic Left.

Unfortunately, it needs to be a lot better. It's not fair to you and other relatively sane Leftists, but I no longer blame myself for impatience with you people. You fail to reain in the very worst of your own and you suffer the consequences.

Falling back on "patriotic dissent" is a tired defense when the quality of that dissent is so poor that the only thing that could explain it is Bush Dementia or anti-Americanism.

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 24, 2005 04:28 PM (uSomN)

35 I don't know, vonK - if you think your car is runing poorly and moving in the wrong direction, does it follow that beating the shit out of it with a pipe wrench make it "work better?" Yet that's essentially what Democratic politicians have been doing for the last four years in their "opposition" to American policy. No constructive, reasoned critique. No suggestions on how to fix things. No alterative direction. Just pipe-wrench shit-beating.

Posted by: Rocketeer at June 24, 2005 04:38 PM (GFaLW)

36 All right, fess up - who did the "Cain" post?

Ace, if it was you, this needs to be a recurring character. Beats the shot out of Smitty. Or Hoke.

Posted by: John from WuzzaDem at June 24, 2005 04:40 PM (Pt3Le)

37 I appreciate the point VK is trying to make, but agree with many of the responses. I would like to engage the left in dialogue, but many of them seem much more interested in peddling crap like this:I've long wondered how an otherwise seemingly rational person could adhere so strictly to stilted ideologies; how they could be so consistently willing to smother a sense of social well-being. It's merely a matter of having been dumped in the shallow end of the gene pool. They're sorta like the puppy who piddles in the middle of the floor: They just don't know any better.Comparing one's political opponents to dogs taking a piss is hardly the stuff of weighty ideological discussions.

A liberal who recently posted on my site didn't engage the ideas I presented. He simply called me a 'pawn,' mocked my lack of comments, engaged in nasty ad hominem attacks and laughed about the fact that he was using my bandwidth to do it. A dozen posts in less than half an hour - none with any substantive argument.

The Republican party, after the debacle of the 1992 and 1996 races, ejected morons like Pat Buchanan pretty successfully. The left needs to clean house, but has shown no inclination to do so.

Instead, guys like Reid shout 'attaboy' when Dick Durbin make completely absurd comparisons.

Posted by: Slublog at June 24, 2005 05:12 PM (tFDFF)

38 Barack Obama had to remind his colleagues, "We need to be a loyal opposition," (quoted yesterday in Congressional Quarterly Today -- don't know if the quote has made the MSM).

Having worked on the Hill when many Republicans were expressing their misgivings about intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, I know the difference between saying, "This is unwise, it will unduly cost us in blood and treasure, and this is what we should be doing instead," and saying, "The Administration's policy is evil!"

Posted by: Simon Oliver Lockwood at June 24, 2005 05:54 PM (4ZLxG)

39 "And any critique for US actions gets slammed by the left (sic) as "America hating" and"troop hating", instead of getting discussed in a civil manner." - von orcster

A big part of the problem is that all the left does is 'critique', without ever offering alternative solutions, and the 'critques' are usally couched in terms that are abusive, personal and over-the-top - see Durbin, Linda Foley, Eason Jordan etc etc etc.

Additioanlly, the left somehow never finds time to criticize anyone else except our allies - and characterizes the terrorists as 'freedom fighters', 'minute men' or on a good day, 'insurgents', and speaks about them in morally nuetral, if not supportive, terms.

"what could better evince a love of country than to work to make it better?" - vonkredibleorc

How about saying something nice, or something constructive, or something supportive or something encouraging once in a while, instead of doing nothing but finding fault with everything the US in general and Republicans in particular do.

It is not that the right automatically believes the left is 'unpatriotic', it's that the left all do often does nothing but call names, and always sees things in the worst possible light, with the result that it's almost impossible to believe that the left wants the US to succeed in Iraq.

For the record, I do believe the left would like to see the US fail in Iraq, even though the consequences would be disasterous for the Iraqi people and extremely harmful to the US because the left, 'patriotic' or not, hates George Bush more than it loves this country.


Posted by: at June 24, 2005 06:29 PM (vuEOV)

40 Last unsigned comment was mine.

Posted by: max at June 24, 2005 06:32 PM (vuEOV)

41 I had not read this when I made my 1st post on this thread, but it says better than I did what I feel about 'liberals' and the war in Iraq:

http://polipundit.com/wp-comments-popup.php?p=8514&c=1#comments

"I would argue that the reason Durbin and others continue making such over-the-top remarks is because their hatred of George W. Bush has overshadowed their love of country. It is still there, it is just temporarily obscured by hatred. It reminds me of when two divorcing parents fight. Sometimes one will do something to lash out at the other, without considering what their uncontrolled words and behavior does to the children. They love the children, but their hatred of their former spouse blinds them to what they are doing to them."

Posted by: max at June 24, 2005 06:42 PM (vuEOV)

42 Ace,

Excellent post. Well reasoned and non inflammatory.

My grandfather used to say, "A hit dog always hollers". If the arrow finds its mark, the injured party will always sing out. And the Dhimmicrats are singing to me.

I am retired military. It hurts now and it hurt when I was on active duty to hear people who don't know any better consistently opine how evil my own countrymen are. I have yet to meet an evil "average American". I have yet to hear anyone offer a better country than mine. Until I can be convinced, I'll continue to defend her, especially against all domestic enemies. For if you can't support the country as a loyal opposition, then you are a traitor, and you deserve my contempt and my best efforts to defeat you.

And if you respond when Karl Rove throws a rock, then you must be the cur that needs to be beaten.

Subsunk

Posted by: Subsunk at June 24, 2005 08:11 PM (dT4Ud)

43 "liberals... don't feel comfortable praising America"

Quite correct. Watch the DNC and GOP nominating conventions for proof.

Republicans are absolutely batty about America; give them the slightest excuse and they start chanting "USA! USA! USA!" like it's a revelation. You can see people crying with happiness because they're so delighted with our country. They leap to their feet to applaud lines praising America as "the greatest country in the world" and they hate to sit down again. The love Republicans feel for America is practically romantic in nature. It's passionate and tender, wild and unrestrained to the point of crazy infatuation and even obsession.

Democrats? Zero energy. Superior snickers and doleful sighs as the speakers ruminate on the awfulness of the President. Someone refers to "the greatest country in the world" and no one applauds - they understand the speaker's obligated to go through the motions, so they just grit their teeth and bear it. The speaker rushes through the next line, embarrassed. If anyone had tried to chant "USA" he would probably have been expelled for causing a disruption - that's just not done.

Posted by: Megan at June 24, 2005 08:23 PM (ayDqe)

44 All though I agree in spirit with many of the posts here I really don't think the issue with Sen Al-Durbin et al. has anything to do with loving or hating America.

I think the concept is meaningless to him except as a tool to be exploited if it fits the need at the time. He doesn’t hate America or our troops or maybe even George Bush. America is simply the chess board he’s playing his game on. Our troops (and the minorities and the gays etc.) are simply the game pieces and props he must use to get what he wants.

The radical left-wingers have learned they can say almost anything and get away with it in the press. They don’t care about the detainees or the troops or the people who were in the twin towers. They just say what they think will get the results they want. Like the Russians before Reagan, they care only about winning, not about compromise or how the game is played. And just as Reagan did, I think we need to realize what we’re fighting. ...People so lost in their need for power and victory that they no longer are fighting for anything except winning.

Posted by: Chuck at June 24, 2005 11:36 PM (jmDbL)

45 Chuck,
That's exactly why what Durbin did is so disgusting. It's one thing to be so tone-deaf and silly as to think that what goes on in Gitmo is anything like totalitarian prison camps. It's something else entirely to know it's not and make irresponsible statements like that anyway just to score cheap political points. That's cynical and dishonest and sinister. That's what's so fucking infuriating about the Dems these days; they know they're sapping the morale of the troops and the will of the public and they simply don't give a damn. It's far more important to kneecap the President.

Posted by: UGAdawg at June 24, 2005 11:50 PM (alGm/)

46 I agree UGAdawg

It's like watching a movie and thinking "I can see what they're trying to say with this character, but there's no way someone could actually get away with that in real life." Then you realize it isn't a movie after all.

Posted by: Chuck at June 24, 2005 11:57 PM (jmDbL)

47 Megan on the Republicans:

You can see people crying with happiness because they're so delighted with our country. They leap to their feet to applaud lines praising America as "the greatest country in the world" and they hate to sit down again. The love Republicans feel for America is practically romantic in nature. It's passionate and tender, wild and unrestrained to the point of crazy infatuation and even obsession.

We aren't the 1st country to have a faction that uses hyper-nationalism to appeal to the masses and in some cases deflect them from bad news.

The Europeans were huge on the tactic until WWII closed that chapter out. Same with Japan. Todays hyper-nationalists are China, the USA, and N. Korea.

Megan on Democrats:

Someone refers to "the greatest country in the world" and no one applauds - they understand the speaker's obligated to go through the motions, so they just grit their teeth and bear it. The speaker rushes through the next line, embarrassed.

An astute observation. Democrats took it to the other extreme at their Convention until their faux hero emerged and turned on a tad of the Republican Right Wing jingoism. But most Dem speakers were obsessing about what was wrong with America. Abu Ghraib! Soldiers dying! Patriot Act persecuting librarians. The precious sacred civil liberties of Muslim terrorists at risk!

If they had hammered Bush, but confined themselves to critiques of how Bush has favored wealthy cronies and was weakening their beloved America (and confined Michael Moore outside the Convention and not let race con man Sharpton speak...) they could have had a much better shot at a mediocre President. Even with Kerry. If they had said Iraq was a clusterfuck weakening America vs. bubbering over Abu Ghraib...they would have gained votes. If they had talked about how Bush's bootlicking of corporate cronies, Saudi Arabia, and China was killing the middle class - his 700 billion windfall to Big Pharma that barred seeking bulk discounts in drug prices - and offered solutions, they would have had a better shot. If they had talked about outsourcing gutting the industrial Midwest and the miasma of corruption the Republicans had launched with the K Street bandits - perhaps Ohio & Missouri would have been Democratic locks. If they had just reached out to religious people...not the Schiavo fanatics...but ordinary religious people and told them the Democrats liked them...Who knows what would have happened? It sure couldn't have hurt, but the Dems have had a pathological aversion to reaching out to certain groups (1)the Religious(2) The pro-life moderates(3)The Patriotic(4)The military (5)Southerners & southern culture

Posted by: Cedarford at June 25, 2005 01:25 AM (ywZa8)

48 "Todays hyper-nationalists are China, the USA, and N. Korea."

Uh... no, I hardly think the Chinese and the NoKos love their respective countries. Fear maybe. I'll give you pre-war Japan, sort of, but that had the additional strictures of race, class, and duty - not necessarily a basis for emotional or idealistic affection. America is, quite frankly, unique - and so are the people who love her. Remember it's not just Americans who feel that way. A lot of the people who move here and become citizens do so as well - Schwarzenegger's convention story of being so proud of his citizenship that he walked around all day wrapped in the flag has millions of counterparts.

Posted by: Megan at June 25, 2005 06:17 AM (ayDqe)

49 The problem with the liberal concept of "patriotism" is that they are patriotic only to their personal conception of what the country should be. This renders the idea of patriotism meaningless - it is trivial to say that one has a loyalty to one's own world views. Their unbridled criticism results, then, from the failure of the country to satisfy their individual tenets about what it should be.

The conservative idea of patriotism is more externalized - love of country as it is, even when it doesn't match up to our notions of what it should be. This tempers the criticism from the right, and provides a natural unity and cohesion (called "marching in lockstep" by our friends on the left).

The left is like the naive bride who marries a guy presuming that she can change him into someone she can love. The right is the bride who decides that she loves him, warts and all.

Posted by: Geoff at June 25, 2005 08:16 AM (A86k9)

50 Karl Rove put his cards on the table and I applaud his honesty. If some Liberal/Leftists/Democrats don't like it then go cry about it or go to an Oprah/Dr. Phil feel good session!

Posted by: Paul at June 25, 2005 08:40 AM (M7kiy)

51 If they had hammered Bush, but confined themselves to critiques of how Bush has favored wealthy cronies and was weakening their beloved America

Right. As if they haven't tried. It doesn't work cause it won't stick. Nobody believes it (not enough to matter).

Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 25, 2005 11:29 AM (+ZN2e)

52 The problem with the liberal concept of "patriotism" is that they are patriotic only to their personal conception of what the country should be......... - Geoff

Outstanding post!

Belongs on the 'front page' of this site so it can be linked more easily.

Posted by: max at June 25, 2005 12:18 PM (2vX1h)

53 The problem with the liberal concept of "patriotism" is that they are patriotic only to their personal conception of what the country should be......... - Geoff

Again, an outstanding post which belongs on the 'front page', imo.

And the next step is to become a 'citizen of the world' as so many members of our msm claim to be. And given how they report on the United States, I believe them.



Posted by: max at June 25, 2005 07:06 PM (lZrSW)

54 so... what is " a sense of social well-being"?

guess I'm genetically too damdum to gettit....

Posted by: Claire at June 26, 2005 03:00 PM (l1oyw)

55 doors.txt;10;15

Posted by: yomHQSZAHCPFGEJjrRj at September 15, 2009 10:21 AM (/FkcH)

56 Some syntactic devices used by languages for marking questions include:Non-syntactic devices include:Combinations of any of the above are possible, as well as alternative patterns for different types of questions. ,

Posted by: Arnold90 at October 22, 2009 08:24 PM (LJjU/)

(Jump to top of page)






Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0212 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0114 seconds, 64 records returned.
Page size 62 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.



MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!

Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat