SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sea_biscuit who wrote (689384)7/1/2005 5:43:03 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769667
 
HOWARD DEAN GOT IT WRONG"

EXCLUSIVE from Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell: Democratic
National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, in typical foot-in-mouth
manner, citing a DNC "report," recently made the outrageous claim that
African-American and young voter turnout was somehow suppressed in Ohio.
The facts tell a different story. More:
humaneventsonline.com



To: sea_biscuit who wrote (689384)7/1/2005 5:43:42 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769667
 
"LIBERAL GROUPS ATTACK DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR"

Their inability to recognize reality while chasing a blind ideology
makes activist groups like these dangerous. But the real danger to the
country lies in the Democratic Party's allegiance to such groups. If the
2004 Democratic presidential primary taught us that nothing to the right
of a bleeding liberal could compete for the nomination, this should tell
us nothing will change for 2008. More:
humaneventsonline.com



To: sea_biscuit who wrote (689384)7/1/2005 5:44:21 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
"DURBIN IS SORRY, BUT WHAT ABOUT RANGEL?"

So Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., finally apologized. Now where is the
apology from Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.? Rangel's remarks should have
engendered the same kind of outcry brought about by Durbin's insidious
remarks. Yes, Rangel made the comments on a radio show, as opposed to
the Senate floor. But Al Jazeera and extremist Web sites would still
have carried Durbin's remarks had the senator made them while standing
in line at Starbucks. And Durbin serves as the second-ranking Democrat
in the Senate. But Rangel is the ranking member on the powerful House
Ways and Means Committee. He is serving his 17th term in the Senate.
More: humaneventsonline.com



To: sea_biscuit who wrote (689384)7/1/2005 5:45:06 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769667
 
Durbin is Sorry, But What About Rangel?

by Larry Elder
Posted Jul 1, 2005

So Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., finally apologized. Now where is the apology from Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.?

Durbin, on the Senate floor June 14, 2005, attacked the Bush administration for its alleged mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. After reading from an FBI report purporting to describe mistreatment of prisoners, Durbin said, "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

Durbin at first refused to apologize, blaming the criticism on the "right wing." Two days after his remarks, again on the Senate floor, Durbin "clarified" his earlier words: "Now, sadly, we have a situation here where some in the right-wing media have said that I have been insulting men and women in uniform. Nothing could be further from truth."

But the criticism continued. Democratic Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said, "I think it is a disgrace. He is a good friend of mine, but I think it is a disgrace to say that any man or woman in the military acts like that."

Durbin finally apologized. "After reading the horrible details in that memo which characterized the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo," said Durbin, "I then, on my own -- my own words -- made some characterizations about that memo . . . I have come to understand that was a very poor choice of words. . . . I'm sorry if anything that I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. . . . I'm also sorry if anything I said in any way cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military" [emphasis added].

This brings us to Rep. Rangel.

Only eight days before Durbin's remarks, Rangel, on New York City's WWRL radio, attacked Bush for the "fraudulent" case for his War in Iraq: "It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored" [emphasis added].

When the host asked Rangel to clarify, the congressman said, "I am saying that people's silence when they know terrible things are happening is the same thing as the Holocaust, where everyone would have me believe that no one knew those Jews were killed over there."

The Anti-Defamation League demanded an apology. But where are the screaming editorials or the outrage from the pundit class? You see, Democrats like black attack dogs such as Rangel. They help to keep the black electorate angry and hostile toward Republicans, the better to ensure their 90% monolithic black Democratic vote.

This explains the Democrats' silence. But what about Republicans? Where is their demand for an apology from Charlie Rangel? This explains one of the reasons why Republicans fail to attract the black vote. Republicans remain unwilling to challenge irresponsible accusations of racism -- especially from so-called black leaders -- which allows the Democrats to continue to define the Republican Party as a party of bigots.

When Rangel, back in 1994, said of the incoming Republican Congress, "They don't say [racial epithet for Latinos] or [racial epithet for blacks] anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes'," Republicans said little.

When Al Sharpton sought the Democratic Party presidential nomination, having reached national prominence by falsely accusing a former district attorney of rape, Republicans said nothing. When Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., former chair of the Black Congressional Caucus, called former President George Herbert Walker Bush a "racist," Republicans said little.

Rangel's remarks should have engendered the same kind of outcry brought about by Durbin's insidious remarks. Yes, Rangel made the comments on a radio show, as opposed to the Senate floor. But Al Jazeera and extremist Web sites would still have carried Durbin's remarks had the senator made them while standing in line at Starbucks. And Durbin serves as the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate. But Rangel is the ranking member on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. He is serving his 17th term in the Senate.

The Democratic Party "earns" its 90% black vote by refusing to look at blacks as individuals, as opposed to members of an aggrieved group. Republicans make the same mistake by refusing to respond to "black leaders'" often silly accusations of racism.

When Republicans say nothing in the face of irresponsible charges by "black leaders," many other blacks quietly say to themselves, "They didn't fight back. Maybe they've got something to hide."

Rep. Rangel, your turn to apologize.



To: sea_biscuit who wrote (689384)7/1/2005 5:46:03 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 769667
 
"KARL ROVE OFFENDS LIBERALS, BUT PROVES A SALIENT POINT ABOUT THE MEDIA"

Durbin was ignored because the media agree our Guantanamo detainee
practices are savage and dictatorial. Rove was highlighted because those
same journalists vehemently disagree with the notion that liberals had
the wrong response to Sept. 11. The media's standard of newsworthiness
is explicitly a double standard, unmissably ideological and liberal.
More: humaneventsonline.com



To: sea_biscuit who wrote (689384)7/1/2005 5:46:35 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Karl Rove Offends Liberals, But Proves a Salient Point about the Media

by L. Brent Bozell, III
Posted Jul 1, 2005

Karl Rove proved a very salient point last week in his speech to the Conservative Party of New York. The media's reflexes still work. After most in the "news" media spent a week steadfastly ignoring Sen. Richard Durbin's (D-Ill.) hideous statement comparing U.S. detainees to the killing fields of Pol Pot, Rove said liberals were weak on terrorism, and zoom! Rove's remarks rocketed to the front page and with that, the top of the political buzz.

The New York Times set the table by quoting only a few sentences in which Rove explained that conservatives saw Sept. 11 and knew it was time for war, while liberals saw it as an occasion for indictments and therapy and an opportunity to understand our attackers. Liberal politicians like Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton were outraged. And so were the liberal media.

The bottom line is this: Durbin was ignored because the media agree our Guantanamo detainee practices are savage and dictatorial. Rove was highlighted because those same journalists vehemently disagree with the notion that liberals had the wrong response to Sept. 11. The media's standard of newsworthiness is explicitly a double standard, unmissably ideological and liberal.

Let's grant the offended liberals the point that the vast majority of us wanted to join the Congress in singing "God Bless America" after the attacks. It's also true that a vast majority of Democrats voted to authorize war in Afghanistan. Only one Senate Democrat and about 65 House Democrats voted against the terrorism-fighting Patriot Act. But those votes took place within the first six weeks after Sept. 11. Would any liberal political adviser of sound mind advise voting against those at that time? Do those six weeks get to last forever in defining what liberalism has prescribed for a war on terror?

In turn, liberals must grant the point that Rove was singling out liberals, specifically the MoveOn.org folks and Michael Moore and Howard Dean, not Democrats in general. The extent to which Sen. Clinton and the other offended Democrats have endorsed and promoted, or at least refused to criticize MoveOn and Michael Moore and Howard Dean is the extent to which they are not allowed to take offense at Karl Rove's remarks.

Liberals should also be defined by how they viewed the attacks after the initial shock and national unity wore off. Six days after Sept. 11 on ABC, "comedian" Bill Maher said the terrorists weren't cowards like we were, "lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away." Ten days after the attacks, an ABC special featured historian Richard Rhodes proclaiming that "These acts didn't come out of nowhere. People are suffering in the world, seeing their children die of preventable disease and of malnutrition." Within two weeks, ABC had banned its reporters from wearing of flag pins on television and "Nightline" had already turned predictably to sending a reporter into a Berkeley classroom as the majority of the class agreed that violence only breeds more violence.

That doesn't mean fuzzy liberal talking points shouldn't have been on the news. It does mean that liberalism was already on public display in its emphasis on avoiding war and defeating our mortal enemies by empathetic negotiation and foreign aid packages.

Karl Rove, therefore, was correct in his assessment. Still, Newsweek's Washington Bureau Chief, Daniel Klaidman warned that Rove is trying to create "the sort of Republican fantasy of a liberal." But these views of liberalism are not fantasies. They are a reality etched in the historical record. These liberals constitute a large part of the Democratic base and have defined this party. Just as they have defined the liberal media.

Add this question: How precisely did supposedly hawkish President Clinton fight his war on terror, if he waged one? Indicting Osama bin Laden in Manhattan hardly stopped Americans from dying at the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists in our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania or aboard the U.S.S. Cole. He lobbed a few cruise missiles, timed precisely to distract attention from his testimony in the Monica Lewinsky case, and then stopped as quickly as he started. This means Mrs. Clinton should think twice before taking offense at indictment quips.

It's also fascinating to see what the liberal-media summation of the Rove speech left out. Rove cited a pundit who declared liberalism is in great risk of becoming irrelevant, of "getting defined, as conservatism once was, entirely in negative terms." That pundit is Paul Starr, editor of the liberal American Prospect magazine. Try finding any mention of Paul Starr in all the anti-Rove hubbub.

Rove and Starr don't agree on much, but they agree that the mantle of idealism and optimism and activism is moving to the right, while the mantle of cynicism and pessimism and defensiveness shifts left. Cynical, pessimistic and on the defensive. Come to think of it, that's also a great description of the liberal media flailing against Republican control of Washington.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------