Friday
June 24, 2005
THEY MUST BE KIDDING: Karl
Rove says at a Republican fundraiser that liberals are soft
on national security. How is this news? Because he made the critique
explicitly in the context of responding to September 11?
I'll grant
that Rove's parting shot about the "motives of liberals"
was over the top. Still, for about five years now liberals (by
which I mean most Democrats) have been running around the country
with a big, broad brush calling conservatives (by which they mean
most Republicans) evil, extremists, crooks, liars, thieves, theocrats,
bigots, homophobes, racists, sexists, etc. and impugning their
motives in any number of other ways on virtually a daily basis.
Karl Rove calls liberals a bunch of sissies a single time and
Democrats and the media have a collective seizure of apoplexy.
As for the
politics of the episode, Rove wins again. By making such a huge
fuss yesterday the Democrats looked immature, borderline hysterical,
and left the public with the impression that they doth protest
too much.
At some point
you would think Democrats would learn a couple of lessons about
dealing with situations like this. One is that an understated
response is often much more effective than a big public display.
Dismissal communicates confidence, not insecurity. The second
is that ridicule and sarcasm are extremely potent weapons that
can be used to make rhetorical bombs (like the one Rove threw
night before last) detonate in the thrower's face.
For example,
instead of holding a press conference, imagine if the same Democrats
had released a statement that went something like this:
"It's
no surprise that with support for the war in Iraq falling and
with the President having no plan to deal with issues at home
like healthcare and the rising deficit, Karl Rove is back to
his old tricks. We are disappointed to see Mr. Rove resort yet
again to exploiting the tragedy of September 11 to raise a few
dollars.
We'd
also like to remind America of the facts: under the leadership
of the Bush administration, since 9/11 more than $200 billion
in taxpayer money has been spent and more than 1,700 brave American
soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Osama
bin Laden is still at large. WMD still have not been found.
Today General John Abizaid testified before Congress that "there
are more foreign fighters coming into Iraq than there were six
months ago."
As
one of the most senior members of this Republican administration,
perhaps Mr. Rove should spend less time traveling around the
country raising money and more time back at the White House
providing President Bush with ideas to improve on such an inauspicious
record in fighting the War on Terror."
It's pretty
basic stuff: dismiss the charge, layout a brief factual critique/rebuttal,
and close with sarcasm. Understated, effective, and confident.
Instead,
we got a media circus complete with gnashing of teeth and cries
of indignation that made Democrats look silly and insecure - which,
by the way, is probably just what Karl Rove wanted us to get.
- T. Bevan 9:35 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
Wednesday
June 22, 2005
'THE NASTIEST OF PRISONERS:' I have no idea why this
Tim Chavez column about Tennessee National Guardsman John
Krenson didn't get more attention:
And
as an intelligence specialist, he [Krenson] came face to face
with the kind of men incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay....
"I
worked with people who had worked at Gitmo earlier, I worked
with people who worked at the primary detention facility in
AFG, and I visited that facility many times. I saw detainees
(many times on their prayer rugs, other times reading, other
times talking when they were not allowed to). I saw the interrogation
rooms. I worked with the soldiers and the leaders who ran this
place.
"I
know those operations fairly well, and I got to know the people
who ran those operations — both active duty and reservists.
They are normal Americans. They are good decent people who believed
in what they were doing. Americans — including Sen. Durbin
— can be and should be proud of them.
"Be
assured the worst of the worst detainees are the ones at Gitmo.
It took a lot of effort to get a detainee shipped over …
. They are no victims. … Their victims are most often
Afghan villagers who have risked their lives simply to vote
or are construction and aid workers from around the world who
are assisting Afghanistan to modernize and develop. The detainees
at Gitmo are the ringleaders and verified trigger-pullers in
these incidents.
"This
is serious business with tens and hundreds of thousands of lives
at stake. People have already lost lives because we've released
Gitmo detainees. I read those reports, when they were captured
— a second time. I can't print the words we used in AFG
when we found out a soldier died at the hands of a terrorist
released from Gitmo. Gitmo didn't make them want to
kill again. Their release allowed them to kill again."
(emphasis added)
Hugh
Hewitt's interview with a Gitmo veteran yesterday told a similar
story: these are some awfully nasty people we're dealing with
at Gitmo. That's something too often glossed over in the debate.
And while they deserve to be treated humanely, they don't deserve
our sympathy.
The process
of detaining, interrogating, and adjudicating cases against prisoners
at Gimo is an extraordinarily difficult task with very serious
consequences - one which I think most people would conclude our
men and women in uniform are doing as admirably and honorably
as possible.
Chavez finished
his column on Guardsman Krenson with words I don't think can be
emphasized enough:
Americans
trust our military to do the right thing — at Gitmo or
wherever — in balancing the need for information and also
be humane. A recent Gallup poll showed 74% of Americans surveyed
expressed trust in the military. That's because the military
is us. And more John Krensons returning home alive as deacons
in their churches, fathers in their families and heroes in their
communities is most important — not the political agendas
of U.S. senators and big media.
-
T. Bevan 9:15 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
Monday
June 20, 2005
KENNEDY "RULES OUT" CLARENCE THOMAS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE:
Interesting comments from Senator Ted Kennedy on the
Supreme Court in this
little-noticed Bloomberg News article from Friday:
Kennedy,
73, said he believes that the consideration on Rehnquist's replacement
should be more than just "replacing one right-winger for
a right-winger." Still, the Senate debate on any Rehnquist
replacement would "clearly" be much different than
the discussion about a nominee who would tip the ideological
balance of the court.
"It's
clear it's going to have a significant impact" on the Senate
debate that "Rehnquist is leaving and not" one of
the court's moderates, the Massachusetts Democrat said in an
interview.
He
added that he thinks that two sitting justices, Antonin Scalia
and Clarence Thomas, "would be completely troublesome"
as nominees. He ruled out any possibility of Thomas
being selected, while acknowledging that Scalia might
be harder to defeat.
Yet
he suggested that Bush would tap a younger conservative jurist
who could serve for many years. "I do think it will be
a younger, more aggressive" nominee who "will be a
force on the court," Kennedy said.
Intriguingly,
Kennedy said that of the three oft-mentioned, younger appeals
court judges who are candidates for the chief justice slot -
J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts or Michael McConnell - one would
be acceptable. "I'm not going to get into which
one" because that would be "the kiss of death"
for that person, he said.
Get all the
latest news and commentary on the impending high court battle
at our new RCP Supreme Court Resource
page.
THE
DEAN DIVE: There's been a lot of talk about President
Bush's sagging poll numbers, but not so much talk about this:
There's no
trend on the Rasmussen poll but on the FOX poll Dean's favorable
rating is down ten points since the beginning of March and his
unfavorable rating is up nine.
THE
DUKE: The stench emanating from Randy "Duke"
Cunningham's real estate dealings is strong, foul stuff. Give
credit to Josh
Marshall for pushing this story on the web and to the
San Diego
Union-Tribune for its straight-up coverage of the blossoming
scandal.
Cunningham
continues to insist the deal was "aboveboard" and his
office issued a statement Friday saying the Congressman was "working
on a comprehensive statement that will address issues that have
been raised recently."
It's hard
to imagine an innocent explanation for Cunningham's cozy and profitable
relationship with defense contractor MZM Inc., but in the interest
of fairness we should wait to hear what he has to say. Meanwhile,
the natives back home are getting
restless.
QUOTE
OF THE DAY: "If it is Dick Durbin in trouble, then
something is wrong." Congresswoman
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) showing just how clueless some on the
left can be. - T. Bevan 7:30 am Link
| Email | Send
To A Friend
