June 25, 2005

What Rove Wrought

Glenn Reynolds thinks Karl Rove is politically smart because liberals and Democrats, all of a sudden, are brandishing their hawkish credentials. Soft on terror? Us? It’s an interesting point, and it’s a point well taken, but that isn’t the only change that’s happening on the left all of a sudden.

Centrist Democrat Bull Moose has this to say:
Karl, you have performed a great service for the nation and for the party - the Democratic Party, that is. With your comments, you have brought together old Democrats, new Democrats, liberal Democrats, moderate Democrats, conservative Democrats, fat Democrats, thin Democrats, Christian Democrats, Jewish Democrats, Muslim Democrats, Pagan Democrats, Dennis Kucinich Democrats, Joe Lieberman Democrats, meat eating Democrats, vegetarian Democrats, Daily Kos Democrats, Bull Moose Democrats, New Donkey Democrats, Atrios Democrats, MoveOn Democrats and DLC Democrats.
Indeed. Bull Moose could also include many ex-Democrats in his list.

Joe Gandelman has more:

Many centrists and independents may soon conclude that the only solution to this is to not to vote if they feel inclined to vote GOP, or even hold their noses and cast protest votes in 2006 and 2008 for the Democrats.

Why? Because the GOP never could have won the last elections without garnering some votes from the center and from Democrats who felt their party had gotten too extreme.

Karl Rove is taking a sledghammer to the GOP's carefully-constructed past image.
I’m not going to vote Democratic as a protest vote against the GOP, not because of one outburst from Karl Rove. But Joe has a point. It certainly doesn't make me more likely to vote Republican next time. It's not going to make anybody more likely to vote for Republicans next time. It's not exactly news that conservatives are more hawkish than liberals. But Ann Coulter type rants are repellent to many people who prefer the foreign policy of Republicans to the foreign policy of Democrats.

I will probably vote for Democrats in 2006. My opinions on the two parties are divided. I can go either way, depending on what we're talking about. The Republicans dominate all three branches of government, and voting Democratic is a balance-restoring corrective. I have no idea which party I will vote for in the 2008 presidential election. No idea at all. It depends on way too many unpredictable variables.

If the Republican Party were less polarizing and obnoxious, though, I might consider actually joining it. Every former Democrat has to deal with this question. Do we join the right, or do we halt our rightward drift in the center? The reaction on the right to Karl Rove’s hatchet job tells me I’m right to stop in the center.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at June 25, 2005 01:50 PM

"I'm not going to vote Democratic as a protest vote against the GOP, not because of one outburst from Karl Rove. But Joe has a point. It certainly doesn't make me more likely to vote Republican next time. It's not going to make anybody more likely to vote for Republicans next time."

Of course it's not.

What I suspect, however, is that what is going to be said about Rove/Republicans/Dubya (and probably America) in the coming, oh, week WILL make people more likely to vote Republican next time.

That's what Rove was banking on, I think.

Posted by: Jaybird at June 25, 2005 01:58 PM

What Rove has demonstrably shown is that the Democrats are more sensitive to the feelings of Kos and Moveon.org than to the honor of our country and military.

Rove, you sweet beautiful genius.

Posted by: spaniard at June 25, 2005 02:16 PM


Do you think I am sensitive to the feelings of Moveon.org? I can't stand that slimeball outfit. That's not what this is about.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 25, 2005 02:22 PM

It is instructive to see the partisan breakdown of the latest ARG poll on presidential job approval - overall standing 42%. Breakdown:

Republicans -85%
Democrats - 18%
Independents - 17%

This is the Rove "genius". Endless red meat for the base leads to incredibly high support from Republicans and a turn-off for everyone else.

I recall how this president campaigned as a "uniter, not a divider". And yet after the country was attacked, after support for war in Afghanistan was approved unanimously, after 90% gave support through the polls for his leadership in fighting those who actually attacked us, he now sends out his chief political hack to stoke the divisions in this country, with an absurd Limbaugh-like rant.

How can this president, with such political advisors, hope to win back the independents? I dont think they are capable of it.

Posted by: Karl Jr. at June 25, 2005 02:23 PM

Do you think I am sensitive to the feelings of Moveon.org?

No I don't. But I expect this from Dems, because this is politics-- not from you. That's why I sincerely don't understand your position.

Posted by: spaniard at June 25, 2005 02:27 PM

The reaction on the right to Karl Rove’s hatchet job tells me I’m right to stop in the center.

Guess I am on the right, then, because after all the name calling on the part of the Democrats I found Rove refreshing. While I certainly don't agree with all he said about social issues, at this point I have simply given up on the Democrats, and that includes so called centrists like Hillary. Have you read any of her red meat speaches? By the way, here is the actual transcript of Rove's speech? The part in question is

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. 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. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to… submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be" to "use moderation and restraint in responding to the… terrorist attacks against the United States."

Emphasis mine. Note that he points to moveon.org. Now, if you wish to dispute that moveon.org is "liberal", fine. I wish there were more folks who did so.

I will probably vote for Democrats in 2006.

Does it matter who the candidates are?

Posted by: chuck at June 25, 2005 02:28 PM

As a centrist, I would really like to see moderate Democrats use this as an opportunity to distance themselves from the MoveOn.org/Michael Moore wing of the party, rather than closing ranks.

Posted by: Norton at June 25, 2005 02:29 PM


read Norton's comments. THAT'S what I would have expected from moderate Dems and centrists-- like you.

Posted by: spaniard at June 25, 2005 02:30 PM

This is just going around in circles.

Anyone who really thinks that a having a hissy fit over something Karl Rove said not even close to an election is more important, in weighing how they should vote, than which party is stronger on national security is soft on defense.

Which sort of underlines Karl's point.

Posted by: ZF at June 25, 2005 02:31 PM

Chuck, quoting Rove: Submitting a petition is precisely what Moveon.org did.

You know, Karl Rove should have kept his entire speech at that level instead of lurching into the traitor nonsense. If he had done that, and that alone, I would have applauded.

Moveon.org is an easy target. It is totally unnecessary, and obnoxious, to accuse them of treachery. They aren't treacheous, they are just naive and juvenile.

Rove should have made them a laughingstock and left it at that. When you can make the entire country laugh at your political opponents, then you're a genius. When you make people who might be sympathetic to your point of view defend your political opponents, then you've botched it.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 25, 2005 02:36 PM

"If the Republican Party were less polarizing and obnoxious, though, I might consider actually joining it."


I know we aren't the reality based party. I know that we're all just a bunch of unemployable white Christian fundies. I know that we would rather see senior citizens eating dogfood (when they weren't cutting up their pills to make their prescriptions stretch longer) than piss on the infield at Taledaga, live on FOX for the inlaws back to home to see.

I know that we support this war for oil because we are historically unnuanced jingoistic bigots. We are incapable of accepting the simple fact that it is our capitalist system that is the true heart of all the hardship faced by folks in places like Zimbabwe, Cuba, and any other hole where people have no voice in government. Yes, socialism has been beat down by the pervasive mental rays of white privilege that emanate from the roof of every WalMart store on the planet and the world's downtrodden must wait for the day when wiser, more introspective leadership arises in America and gently removes the tools of government to a shelf safely high enough that mere citizens can't mess with them.

It's true, Michael - I reflexively loathe all the homosexuals I've ever known, including the three (maybe four) that I served with as a Marine, not to mention my brother the lawyer in Texas, too, who lived a miserable life until he figured out who he really was then pursued his own path to happiness in spite of our repressive and fascist regime.

I'm too stupid to take seriously luminaries like Paul Krugman on economics, Nancy Pelosi on Social Security reform, or Howard Dean on bipartisanship.

Yesterday a ranking Democrat senator damned the war in Iraq as a failure on the strategic and tactical level. Breathtaking stuff.

I'd be pretty concerned about that kind of sentiment coming from a senior statesman but for the fact it's been the script since the day the Democrats figured out that the Great Unwashed weren't going to hold them responsible for allowing bin Ladin to live to commit 9/11.

They aren't traitors, if the definition is consciously abetting an enemy. They UNconsciously aid the enemy by viewing this war as an opportunity to exploit for individual political ambitions, and nothing more.

I think I've covered everything - wait, yes, Condi, Sowell, Powell... all those folks: house slaves. You got me there.

And yep, when the Jews says "jump" I always shout "oy! how high?".

"Polarizing and obnoxious".

I'd thought much better of you, sir.

Posted by: TmjUtah at June 25, 2005 02:42 PM

...instead of lurching into the traitor nonsense.

Where? The word traitor doesn't appear. The closest I see it the one paragraph that goes

Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.

Where the implication is that Durbin deliberately provided fodder to the Jihadists. I don't agree that this is the case, I think Durbin was simply pursuing politics as usual and neglected to think about the implications of his words. Damning enough in itself, but certainly not treasonous.

Posted by: chuck at June 25, 2005 02:46 PM


You know very well I don't think of Republicans that way. I could not possibly be in the center if I did. I would not have voted for Bush if I did.

Do I need to list the stupid stereotypes of liberals I regularly hear on TV and the radio? Traitors and Socialists, as if liberals have anything substantial in common with John Walker Lindh and Fidel (Socialismo or Muerte!) Castro, are only two.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 25, 2005 02:49 PM


Rasmussen puts Bush's job approval at 50%. Rasmussen did pretty well in the last days of the 2004 election.

Posted by: chuck at June 25, 2005 02:49 PM

Karl Rove should have kept his entire speech at that level instead of lurching into the traitor nonsense.


you keep misquoting him. That's very telling. It usually means you don't have a leg to stand on.

Posted by: spaniard at June 25, 2005 02:58 PM

"Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger."

It aint just Al Jazeera. Check out all those right-wing websites and the soon-to-come GOP ads that will regugitate his words far more than AlJ could ever do.

The only proper response of someone who sincerely feared the potential negative effects of Durbin's words would have been to quietly rebuke him and hope that nobody would notice them. But sincerity is not the issue here. For partisan advantage, the biggest disseminators of Durbins words are the Republicans themselves.

Posted by: Karl Jr. at June 25, 2005 02:58 PM

Governor Pataki of New York calls Libs traitors:

"Gov. Pataki drew a line in the sand yesterday, declaring he will tolerate no America-bashing on the sacred soil of Ground Zero."


Posted by: spaniard at June 25, 2005 03:01 PM

Why in the world should a dedicated political strategist show any concern for the undifferentiated muddle at sixteen months from the next election? They know that the message that will move those wise "moderate centrists" needn't be studied for another twelve months and that delivering it prior to two months prior to the election is a waste of time, energy and money. Now is the time to work with the base and nudge the leaners, it is not the time to waste effort on those who are perfectly able to starve to death while deciding which bale of hay is nearer. The yokel message comes much later.

Just good clean blood sport for the summer doldrums.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 25, 2005 03:01 PM

You know, Karl Rove should have kept his entire speech at that level instead of lurching into the traitor nonsense.

Is there a reason that you keep asserting that Rove said something about liberals being traitors? That word has a specific meaning and Rove neither said nor implied that liberals were such.

Posted by: Juliette at June 25, 2005 03:02 PM

Wouldn't building a centrist Independent movement be a better alternative to swinging back and forth between the Democrats and Republicans?

Posted by: J.Kende at June 25, 2005 03:04 PM

If someone can honestly say that the majority of the liberal leadership hasn't matched the criteria the Rove pointed out in his speech, please find that person and have them give the names of those liberal leaders who haven't met that criteria.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 25, 2005 03:10 PM


I should have noted that I've been registered independent for almost a month now - but my sentiment still holds.

Words mean things. You may very well hear all sorts of labels tossed around on the radio and other various sources of reportage and opinion. It's a free country (sort of, still, but without property rights, I guess, or just in front of elections where speech is concerned) and people say what they will...

The attributes I embraced up above, hasty as I wrote the post, are all labels I have seen layed at the doorstoop of anyone failing to meet the standards set down by either Democratic party elected officials OR national level media and/or political activists.

That's years' worth of "obnoxious" trash, sir.

That the labels are overwhelmingly hyperbolic and inaccurate is proven every election cycle. The shriller the Democrats get, the fewer seats they hold. And we aren't ruled by a pope and don't have any religious police. Yet. There's always tomorrow, though - and the Reality Based Party will invest its time in warning us all about the religous right and corporations at the expense of actually contributing to our national defense or maybe fixing energy or social security policy.

I'm looking to vote FOR candidates - and I'm not alone. The war has been tough - but it's the path we chose.

I would have supported the Martel Option. I am not alone there, either. If freeing the middle eastern/Arab/Islamic populations doesn't work as a remedy to the threat, we will most likely have to go back to the old ways of resolving these sorts of conflicts. Every day we vacillate and temporize on just what the nation really intends to accomplish, we strengthen the enemy. Regardless of the motives of the moonbat contingent
they cannot avoid their place in the formula if they manage to win another Vietnam.

They can't contribute, of course. They'd have to rationalize working with the same people they've effectively charicatured as fundie/homophobic/fascist/racist/illuminati tools for the last few decades.

I hold the remnant of the Democratic party in the same contempt as I do the terrorists facing us from their havens: opposition to be beaten. We must kill the terrorists and provide their populations viable options for living in a post-terror world. We just have to beat the Democrats at the polls to break their strategy of buying elections with our own tax dollars.

Posted by: TmjUtah at June 25, 2005 03:19 PM

Rove, apparently, was being kind:

"51% of Democrats say that US "wrongdoing" might have motivated the 9/11 attacks.

Let that sink in, ladies and gentlemen. More than half of one of the two major American political parties think that we might be at fault for the 9/11 attacks. In contrast, only 17% of Republicans in the poll are this amazingly stupid."


Posted by: spaniard at June 25, 2005 03:50 PM

Spaniard: Michael, you keep misquoting him. That's very telling.

It's telling of what, exactly? I'm not out to "get" Karl Rove just for sport. If you think he meant something other than what I think he meant, then we're just going to have to disagree with each other. But it's not "telling" of anything that I see it differently. Like I said, if he simply lampooned Moveon.org, or even the Democratic Party as a whole, of having a limp-noodle response to terrorism we wouldn't be having this argument.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 25, 2005 03:52 PM

"I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game."

-- MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in a phone call to Ambassador Joseph Wilson after the exposure of Wilson's wife as an undercover CIA operative.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 25, 2005 04:25 PM

From a purely economic perspective, there are a lot more opportunities available to someone who is willing to write as a Republican hack than a Democratic hack. So, if you're close enough to need a tiebreaker, I'd go with that one.

Posted by: Kimmitt at June 25, 2005 04:27 PM

I dont think Karl Rove turned off centrists any more than the Republican Party is cracking up, something you bought a few months ago, Michael.

There have been 2 elections since 9/11, and the results show pretty clearly which party takes national defense seriously. Karl Rove is just stating what everybody knows, which is why the Democrats have been freaking out so badly. It's their Achielles' Heel, one they like to deny and talk tough to dispell that perception, but they can't shake it, because deep down that's not what they're interested in when it comes to government. Education, health care, affirmative action, and all that stuff is what they want to talk about. In the Iowa Democrat Caucus, the issue that concerned them the least, I'm talking dead last, was terrorism.

If liberals are tough, care about national security, and want to see the US succeed in this war, they have a weird way of showing it. I mean hoping for defeat in Iraq, crying "Vietnam! Quagmire!", calling the president a liar and trying to turn public opinion against the war is all music to the enemy's ear.

You might think you're cool for not being a Republican because of one little speech where Rove ridiculed his political opponents (something Democrats never stoop to, right?) but I'm glad I'm not in a party that sees political opportunity in American defeat in war.

Posted by: Chokey at June 25, 2005 04:38 PM

American Right-Wingers Vs. German Right-Wingers
American anti-Liberalism Vs. German anti-Liberalism:

Some of it is the result of the honest misunderstanding of the old liberal outlook, but some of it is also the result of a conscious attempt to encircle Germany. Before the war the danger was seen as the "militaristic Empire." Today, the racial outlook is seen as a threat to all human culture and civilization, making necessary a unified front of all those nations whose dignity is threatened by German barbarism. That is the approach today of those foreign circles interested in isolating Germany.


With the disappearance of racial consciousness, only religious differences seemed to remain. It seemed at the time unjust to give someone a preferred position only because of his religious beliefs, which are an entirely personal matter. At the time, this was tied to a belief in human equality and freedom. It was revolutionary. It shattered the church dogmas that had ruled for centuries and was the foundation of liberal thinking during the last two hundred years. The new goal was humanity itself, and nothing stood in the way of racial mixing.


Once you kids throw out liberalism, you throw out the Enlightenment.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 25, 2005 04:46 PM

Being rational in the face of danger (liberalism) or irrational in the face danger (right-wingers).

The mob always choses irrational behavior. German right-wingers knew this and so does Rove.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 25, 2005 04:49 PM

Michael, you are objecting very strongly to his "hatchet job" about "liberals=traitors"; but it is YOUR words that are the hatchet job.

His words are mere facts: Al Jazeera is repeating Durbin's comparison of the US soldiers to the Nazis.
Just like N. Vietnamese repeated Kerry's Senate testimony comparing US soldiers to Genghis Khan.
In my fisking of your words on the prior thread (you stopped reading at 99?), I noted how you agreed that it would (theoritically / weasel) increase the danger.

What's telling is that first you misquote Rove, than call your misquote a hatchet job.

You refuse to quantify your "higher standard" of objection to Abu or Gitmo.
Shit happens.
More shit happens in war.

I'm as angry with you as TmjUtah; but I understand we're not talking the same language.

How can Rove be doing a hatchet job but Durbin's OK? And if Durbin DID do a hatchet job, first, then that should pretty much excuse Rove in an axe for chop sort of way -- but it doesn't, for you.

I think it's because you're lying to yourself -- you demand Unreal Perfection but refuse to admit it.

The REAL alternatives: Killing Fields when the US leaves; inaction in Rwanda w/o the US; child raping by UN peacekeepers in Congo; murdering US soldiers by UN guards in the Balkans.

I think Awkward Village or somebody had a good long comment, including:
I don't doubt that Dick Durbin very humanly put himself in the place of the prisoners and noted accurately that These Things Should Not Be. He is absolutely correct in that, and to hold American guards accountable to the highest standards is just. But it just isn't a big deal. It isn't.

On the one hand, it's not. On the other hand -- Clinton's Rwanda "no torture (by Americans)" policy is the alternative. Being followed by Bush in Sudan (I say wrongly).

To complain that US soldiers are imperfect in action implies ONLY INACTION meets the "high standards".

Please ask your liberal friends how many Darfur women must be raped before they'd be willing to accept imperfect American action to stop genocide.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 25, 2005 04:50 PM

American Right-Wingers Vs. German Right-Wingers


you lose dude.

Posted by: spaniard at June 25, 2005 04:55 PM

There IS a positive suggestion I haven't seen.

The USA could try to form a prison inspection coalition, composed of prison guards and wardens from members of the Coalition (on the ground with troops in Iraq), to review the procedures and practices of prisoner treatment.

It might be even a subset of the (NATO based?) Human Rights Enforcement Group I also support.

There's a lot of anti-US opinion because of "unilateralism" -- it shouldn't be too hard for Bush to get more military allies on board in a multi-national effort to define appropriate prison practices.

And then they could give Gitmo a rating -- and every other prison.

I think Gitmo would rate rather high.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 25, 2005 05:00 PM

Does anybody have proof that Durbin's words are being played all over the middle-east or is that an urban myth (lie) to ignore torture?

Posted by: NeoDude at June 25, 2005 05:05 PM

American Right-Wingers - German Right-Wingers - Iranian Right-Wingers

Wow...anybody notice a theme?

Posted by: NeoDude at June 25, 2005 05:17 PM



It wouldn't matter. The Guantanamorons are really insusceptible to reason - unless you can mask it as sedition. If you can come up with a dispositive proof that appears seditious in nature they'll snap it up in a heartbeat.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 25, 2005 05:41 PM

Rove talked about "liberals" not democrats. Michael, can you just please try to comment about what was actually said? Emotional venting may be good for your soul but it doesn't do much for meaningful communication.

I agree that liberals are not the problem, though leftists certainly are.

Posted by: neo-beaut at June 25, 2005 05:49 PM

The cell or block leader whose district includes a poor section is fortunate, particularly if the area includes a number of leftist opponents. Work in these districts is particularly rewarding. The average person, assuming he is not hopelessly unteachable, is not hard to win over when he sees that he is being taken seriously. Once won over, he will stay with the party through thick and thin. The political leader from the upper social classes can be particularly effective here.

Background: This article is taken from the Nazi monthly for propagandists. It discusses the duties of the lowest level Nazi propagandists, the cell and block leaders. A block was to consist of forty to sixty households, a cell included four to eight blocks. These men were the direct contact most people had with the Nazi party.

The source: Oscar Schweichler, "Aufgaben der Zellen- und Blockleiter" Unser Wille und Weg, 5 (1935), pp. 15-18.


Posted by: NeoDude at June 25, 2005 06:26 PM


Your urgent desire to be a Nazi is laudable, but really, this is not the proper place for you to share your enthusiams. I think you will find a more congenial environment here.

Posted by: chuck at June 25, 2005 06:37 PM

One article in English is not ALL OVER THE MIDDLE-EAST.

The anti-American screeds of al-Da'wa al-Islamiyya, Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Islamic Task Organization, Jund al-Imam, and the Iraqi Islamic Forces Union get played all over the Islamic world and they are our "allies" on the road to liberty and democracy in Iraq.

So...I think your "coalition of the willing" and the democratically elected government of Iraq gives more ammunition to our mortal enemies than some politician in Washington.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 25, 2005 06:43 PM

Tom Gray: How can Rove be doing a hatchet job but Durbin's OK?

Pardon my language, Tom, but what the fuck? I trashed Durbin for that.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 25, 2005 06:51 PM

al-Sharq al-Awsat also says that a young men in Najaf are being arrested for wearing blue jeans.

posted by Juan @ 6/25/2005 06:10:00 AM


If these are you brave allies on the march to liberty, you guys really don't know what liberty is...which might explain your hatred of liberals.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 25, 2005 06:56 PM

The "traitor" is definitely implied in Rove's remarks with respect to Durbin.

On the other hand, if Durbin wasn't consciously traitorous, then he was unforgiveably negligent. I believe the latter is the case. Our enemies benefit regardless.

Posted by: E Rey at June 25, 2005 06:58 PM


in San Fransicko they'll arrest me for smoking a cigarrette on the street corner. That's your Leftist "liberty".

Posted by: spaniard at June 25, 2005 07:04 PM


Well then, you must love the Iranian Right-Wingers.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 25, 2005 07:23 PM

al-Sharq al-Awsat also says that a young men in Najaf are being arrested for wearing blue jeans.

posted by Juan @ 6/25/2005 06:10:00 AM


If these are you brave allies on the march to liberty, you guys really don't know what liberty is...which might explain your hatred of liberals.


You see, Neodude extrapolates from this instance of intolerance that Iraqis in general are unworthy of our sympathy. Notice that he also derides those who considers Iraqis brave. Hmmm... when we vote we risk long lines; when Iraqis vote they risk car bombings and head-choppings. Cowards, every last one of them. Don't dare to call him unpatriotic or defeatist though; otherwise he'll shudder call you a Naz-oh, wait, he already did.

Like fifty times in his last couple of posts.


Posted by: Samsung at June 25, 2005 07:34 PM

MJT seez: "I will probably vote for Democrats in 2006."

Like, duh, I'm really shocked. Welcome back the the reservation, dude. John Paul Stevens et al are glad to see you back at the Pfizer’s research campus, Michael. Now, vat can vee do for you to empower your tax base in your hometown?

Posted by: Marc S. Lamb at June 25, 2005 07:50 PM

Hey Michael, if you're inclined to throw that Marc bum out you've got my vote.

Posted by: chuck at June 25, 2005 08:14 PM

Are you suggesting that these Iranian funded Islamist groups are going to be warriors of liberty and freedom?

al-Da'wa al-Islamiyya,
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq,
Islamic Task Organization,
Jund al-Imam
Iraqi Islamic Forces Union

Oh yeah, And Hezb'olla of Iraq.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 25, 2005 09:32 PM

"I'd thought much better of you, sir."--TMJU

As had I. Like Spaniard I just don't get your positioning on this matter.

You confess that the Democratic Party is virtually useless,has been subsumed by the 'progressive' faction,and has no interest whatsover in internal soul searching, and then you become remarkably 'deranged' when someone actually tries to do something about the situation. Who cares who the messenger was ; you still have not adressed the message which is the IMPORTANT part of the equation.

Frankly your analysis of this situation is as Spock might say---- not logical. It might be satisfying but it really is not logical.At all.

I don't get it. I don't think even you get it as you are turning yourself into a pretzel on this issue in order to present a modicum of consistency.

It's your choice to vote how you wish and more power to you, but geez this is very thin gruel you are serving up on this issue.

Disappointed I am.

Posted by: dougf at June 25, 2005 09:38 PM

Totten, you have brought out the jackasses in full force. (Yes, I know I am a jackass poster, but I have been around for a month) Comment section is getting lame.

Posted by: Mike #3or4 at June 25, 2005 09:39 PM

I am going to throw in this link to Powerline,because the story pretty much sums up my own reaction to the febrile inhabitants of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: chuck at June 25, 2005 10:26 PM

At the risk of fitting Mike#3's description above, I'll speculate as to why Rove's remarks hurt so badly:

It's the Useful Idiot jacket. It's back! Apparently, this versatile garment fits not only far-Left cranks (Moore, Internat'l ANSWER, MoveOn.org, etc.) but, occasionally, a mainstream Democrat as well (e.g. Durbin, who, however unwitting, is especially useful to the enemy because of his rank).

While Rove painted with a broad brush, he did cite a few irrefutable examples. It's these diamond-hard grains of truth that are so hard to take and are so politically devastating.

Posted by: E Rey at June 25, 2005 10:42 PM

Michael --

Karl Rove was factually right. Sad to say. I speak this as a registered Democrat, who voted and campaigned for Dukakis, and Clinton (twice). As someone who defended Clinton during impeachment.

Moveon, Dean, Soros, Biden, Sharpton, Kucinich, Kennedy, Patty Murray, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Richard Gere (and Hillary), Kerry, Norman Mailer, Susan Sontag, Alice Walker, and ANSWER ALL hit both of Rove's points:

1. They consistently opposed military action in Afghanistan, in favor of either "understanding why people hate us" or calling for the "international community" to prosecute the offenders as they did in Rwanda, Serbia, Darfur, Cambodia, etc. (in other words do nothing).

2. They consistently labeled American troops as cowards, bullies, war criminals, unjustified killers, etc.

These are not marginal figures. Moveon boasts they own the party, they mostly do, they got their pick as DNC Chair, Howard Dean. Soros is the major Democratic donor, runs much of their Dem non-profits. Biden, Sharpton, Hillary, Kucinich, Kennedy, and Kerry are or were Candidates for President, and are major establishment figures within the Party who are unassailable. Michael Moore, the Hollywood Crowd, etc are the glamour figures who campaign for Dems year in and year out and form a substantial part of their donor base. Mailer, Sontag, Walker etc. form the intellectual base of the Party.

When Biden called the bombing of Afghanistan the work of a "high tech bully" and warned we would "pay for this day by day, hour by hour, and be judged harshly" is that not proving Rove's point? When Dean says he doesn't want to prejudge bin Laden, when Sharpton says in Dec 2001 we deserved to be hit on 9/11, when a Columbia Law Prof calls for a "million Mogadishus" in response to the Afghan War, and the Dem response is chirping crickets, is not Rove correct in his assertions? When Kucinich says we need a Dept of Peace, not a military response, and Patty Murray says Muslims hate us because we do nothingn for them while Osama builds day care centers, isn't Rove right? When Moveon calls for no military response to 9/11; when ANSWER says we deserved it, when Maher, Moore, and Richard Gere say we deserved it and should understand the hijackers anger (Hillary came on to the 9/11 benefit concert right after Gere made these remarks and was booed off the stage. She said nothing about them and was in turn booed off the stage) ... don't you think the Dems have a MAJOR problem.

If anything Rove UNDERSTATED the problem. Porter Goss confessed to TIME that he knows very well which sovereign nation bin Laden is in; and the reaction from the Liberal Media and Dems was ... crickets chirping.

If Rove was WRONG, then Dems would DEMAND Bush raise a new Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps units, go in and get bin Laden (he's in Pakistan) and damn the sovereignty and details. Just get bin Laden and kill all his followers, do whatever you need to do in order to get this done. Nevermind Global Tests, using Law Enforcement as the only weapon to fight terror, and empty Clinton missile gestures.

Instead Ted Kennedy WEEPS on the Senate floor over the waterboarding of 9/11 Architect Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Which tells you all you need to know of the state of the Democratic Party. Liberals dominate it (the liberals of say Moveon or Kos which is the Dem mainstream or even CENTER) and they think the attacks were either justified or a law enforcement nuisance (ala Kerry's NYT statements).

Posted by: Jim Rockford at June 25, 2005 10:49 PM

there are only 2 democrats and one liberal foreign leader outside the US that we can rely on to hang tough on Iraq.

1) Joe Lieberman
2) Tony Blair
3) Zell Miller

Posted by: john marzan at June 26, 2005 03:24 AM

Totten, Jarvis, etc. - you guys are not included in the word "liberal" any more than we use it for free market types from the 1800's.

So Rove wasn't talking about you. ;)

Lately it seems politics is more like being a sports fan - my team is my team and it's okay to make fun of Philadelphia Eagles fans.

Posted by: Aaron at June 26, 2005 05:31 AM


Even if you find Roves comments objectionable (I don't) You must admit that the rhetoric coming from the left is 100 times more offensive and 100 times more frequent than that coming from the right. You know this is true, I have seen you defend the brothers at ITM against attacks from lefties. Have you ever seen anything approaching this from republicans? This is nothing new it has always been this way. Why...? Because they know they get a free pass from MSM. Rove is 3 or 4 moves ahead of the rest or us, he knew that the response to his comments would be overblown and is using the left overreaction to everything against them. Look again at what he said instead of what it sounded like he was saying.

Posted by: joefrommass at June 26, 2005 05:45 AM

Re: voting Donk or 'Derm in 96:

The most devastating blow to individual rights in the past, oh, 60 years country happened this week, and it was the "liberal" members of the Supreme Court who led the way:

Supreme Court Rules Private Property Can be Seized

Folks, I understand your concerns about an Evil Republican court, but this ruling lets the state take your house if Wal*Mart can generate higher taxes from the property.

This is the work of good liberals?

After this, I can only hope Bush gets to appoint at least two new Supreme Court justices. Jeez....

Posted by: Mark Poling at June 26, 2005 07:02 AM

I just love how Neodude likens all Iraqis to the extreme pro-Iranian wing but starts howling as soon as you suggest - as Rove did - that radical leftists tend to share common traits regarding their response to security challenges. I guess Neodude alone retains the right to make ludicrous generalizations, so don't you dare make any about him. After all, who wants to be called a Nazi over the internet? Horrfying! Stop all debate immediately, or he'll be forced to call us Nazis again.

Posted by: Samsung at June 26, 2005 09:55 AM

This mess is already starting to bite Rove, Bush and the whole Republican party in the ass. The statistics quoted at the very top of this thread - about Bush's insanely low approval ratings among everyone but Free Republic posters - is only part of the story. The next wave (and it's already begun) is a whole bunch of soldiers, serving in Iraq, who are sending out e-mails and blog posts saying, in effect, "I consider myself liberal, and I'm over here getting shot at while that fat potato-headed fuck is talking shit? What the hell gives him the right?"

Yeah, this was a brilliant move. Classic Republican overreach.

Posted by: pdf at June 26, 2005 10:17 AM

This mess is already starting to bite Rove, Bush and the whole Republican party in the ass. The statistics quoted at the very top of this thread - about Bush's insanely low approval ratings among everyone but Free Republic posters - is only part of the story. The next wave (and it's already begun) is a whole bunch of soldiers, serving in Iraq, who are sending out e-mails and blog posts saying, in effect, "I consider myself liberal, and I'm over here getting shot at while that fat potato-headed fuck is talking shit? What the hell gives him the right?"

Yeah, this was a brilliant move. Classic Republican overreach.

That's right. A whole bunch of soldiers? No kidding! I just heard on the news that the 100K-plus troops in Iraq up and went AWOL. Said they weren't putting their lives on the line for some pundit who criticizes the unhinged psychos who call them brownshirts, murderers, and other complimentary terms. Just close your eyes and try to think like pdf, everyone; I promise it will make sense if you try hard enough.

Posted by: Samsung at June 26, 2005 10:27 AM

Durbin's comment was extreme. Rove's response to it was extreme. Nothing like pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory Karl, you dumb shit.

But then extremist are typically more emotional than logical. This is why a competing two party system is good and a third middle party would be even better. It general relegates the looneys back to their rocking chairs on the party's back porch, while the more moderate candidates win.

What makes these two looneys so irresponsible is we are still in a life and death hot war, and characters like these, to satisfy their own selfish need to divide us, fan the flames of a political war at home giving our soldiers enemies more reason to think they will win.

Please, I beg of you in your gods name, please sit down and shut up until our soldiers and the Iraqi people are relatively safe. You are doing them harm.

Posted by: Jim R at June 26, 2005 11:25 AM

I think Rove was talking about this sort of thing.

Posted by: chuck at June 26, 2005 01:40 PM


A couple of points:

Rove was talking to a partisan group when he made those comments, so I viewed his remarks as political "red meat." On the other hand, Dick Durbin made his "Nazi-Gulags-Pol Pot" remark from the floor of the Senate, and the Dems were mum. I think that this draws a useful contrast.

Second, I would suggest that you become a Republican. I jumped from the Dems years ago, and I haven't grown a second head, yet! Besides, we need more libertarian types in the party.

Posted by: SWLiP at June 26, 2005 02:45 PM

He was talking about and had no intention of talking about any such thing. Karl Rove isn't a policy maker, he's a astute campaign manager and strategist doing what he does best. The President is weak right now, the war is not going well, Republicans in the senate have implored Bush to admit as much and republicans in the house are calling for withdrawal, social security privatization is dead on arrival and Bush is seeing his poll numbers drop to record lows.

That's where Rove comes in with the old divide & conquer. He's trying to reignite partisan flames and muscle up support for his guy. That's what he does. Rove's template basically consists of the following;

1: Leninism as applied to U.S. politics. A mindset that views partisan politics as a form of war as opposed to vice versa, where any & everything goes and the goal is "Not to defeat your opponent in debate, it is to remove him from the face of the earth." As Grover Norquist said "We Play for keeps, they play for lunch."

2: Hyperpartisanship. The goal of the GOP strategist framework is to set a template for partisan warfare and eshew mushy, compromising bipartisan formations & statesmanship. As Newt Gingrich said "Bipartisanship is just another name for date rape." Since public choice theory has determined that people have little incentive to vote or participate in politics, the best way to get them engaged is to ignite feelings of tribal association. The goal is to rile up your base as well as the base of your opponent so that simplistic lines can be clearly drawn.The Rovians have sent memos to GOP officeholders telling them not to get to cozy with Democrats, and have gradually encouraged them to make the atmosphere on the house and senate floor more vitriolic and nasty. Norquist has said they've recently been making efforts to turn State house and senate floors in a much more bitter and nasty direction; fan the flames.

3: All Partisanship, all the time. Otherwise known as the "Fox News strategy." An exemplary emphasis on things that have the most divisive, partisan potential & an effort to coat things that don't in a primer to make them as potentially partisan as possible. Any and every issue must repeatedly emphasize 'Liberal vs. Conservative' 'Liberal vs. Conservative' 'Liberal vs. Conservative.' A rather common addition to this strategy is the firm belief that whatever you use to try to portray yourself or your team in a positive light is mostly ineffective unless it also portrays your opponents in a negative light. This is preferable to plain partisanship when possible.

4: The 51% Solution. Despite all the talk about swingvoters, The Rovian solution places little emphasis on compromising appeals to the center in favor of igniting the base, igniting the flames of apoliticals with conservative sensibilities and churning out a whole new group of voters (in this case, white evangelical christians) in the belief that in the end, they'll have a larger and more motivated army than the other team. Since the polls showed that self described conservatives ounumber self described liberals 3 to 2, and that Kerry actually won Moderates to the tune of 54-45, Rove turned out to bew right. It reamins to be seen if he can continue to reduplicate this strategy.

In short, this is just another Rovian song & dance.

Posted by: Dustin Ridgeway at June 26, 2005 02:53 PM

Here's the thing, Michael. The GOP has spent the past three elections fortifying their majorities across the country (which were really a product of the GOP gains in the 1980s and 1990s) and have now reached solid majority status, controlling all branches of gov't for the first time in several generations. The problem is, this fortification has taken place almost exclusively in the half of the country that we call the "red states." Indeed, it was basically the continuing GOP loyalty of the mountain west and plains states, the final defection of the old South, which briefly flirted with Clintonian New Democratism before abandoning the party of its roots and joining the Bush GOP, and the allegiance of a few electorally important states in the moderate southwest and midwest that gave Republicans a net 11 seat House gain and a net 6 seat Senate gain since the 2000 elections, as well as providing a Republican president with a majority in both the popular vote and electoral college.

As such, the country remains divided, and the DC GOP establishment, far more beholden to the red states than the blues, has been pushing policies with broad appeal to the mountain west and the rural south with little red meat for the moderate midwest or the erudite east. Instead of a nation united, we are experiencing a sort of regional hegemony, with one group of contiguous regions of the country controlling the others.

2006, then, is poised to be the blue state revolution. Republicans have gotten pretty much all the House and Senate seats they're gonna get out of red states for awhile, at least until a bevy of retirements and future redistricting makes way for another dozen GOP congressmen from these states as well as a half dozen senators and governors. Instead, 2006 will be fought in the blue states, with the most competitive Senate races occurring in places like Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota and the highest profile governorships up for grabs in New York, California, Maryland, and Ohio. Note that all of these states are either states that went for both Gore and Kerry or just barely went for Bush. And these states, which rejected Bush twice, are needed in order to give the Republicans yet another victory in 2006.

Should these states protest vote for the Democrats in 2006, the GOP majority is not, I repeat, NOT in danger. But the psychological impact of Democrats picking up 4-5 House seats and 3-4 governorships after losing ground in the last few election cycles will put Republicans on defense and force them to rethink their 2008 plans to basically run another red-state candidate who will appeal to half the country and turn off the other half. Then, perhaps the GOP will run a McCain or a Rudy who will break wide open the red/blue divide and allow the Michael Tottens of the world to embrace Republicanism.

Posted by: DM at June 26, 2005 03:34 PM


The county by county breakdown is more interesting. The split is basically Urban/Rural. Think of the Red Republicans as Mao's revenge on America. The peasants are revolting and the effete city dwellers are running in panic. Reeducation camps are being built even now. And no, milk does not come from plastic bottles.

Posted by: chuck at June 26, 2005 03:53 PM

How is Moveon "slimeball," Mr. Totten?

Posted by: kc at June 26, 2005 07:16 PM

I just looked at Moveon's website. It doesn't look particularly slimy to me. I don't know why it's got the right wingers all het up.

In fact, I think I'll send Moveon a check . . .

Posted by: kc at June 26, 2005 07:35 PM

At its fullest development, fascism redrew the frontiers between private and public, sharply diminishing what had once been untouchably private. It changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity.


It expanded the powers of the executive -- party and state -- in a bid for total control. Finally, it unleashed aggressive emotions hitherto known ... only during war or social revolution.

Fascists were clear about one thing, however: they were not in the middle. Fascist contempt for the soft, complacent, compromising center was absolute (though fascist parties actively seeking power would need to make common cause with centrist elites, against their common enemies on the Left). Their scorn for liberal parliamentarianism and for slack bourgeois individualism, and the radical tone of their remedies for national weakness and disunity, always jarred with their readiness to conclude practical alliances with national conservatives ...

pp. 11-12

Posted by: NeoDude at June 26, 2005 09:08 PM

Where do you think you lie along the left to right political continuum NeoDude?

Posted by: Jim R at June 26, 2005 09:22 PM

Mr. Totten,
Let me get this straight, weeks of Howard Dean and other democrats throwing everything but the rhetorical kitchen sink doesn't equate to one K. Rove comment? How does this scale work? Calling people Nazis is somehow less polarizing, damaging, and stupid? Somehow that doesn't instill the same level of revulsion to drive you more toward 'the right'?
I don't understand your calculus on this. One statement, likely to be used to fire up the base after getting schelacked for weeks, is enough to say that republicans/conservatives are mean and don't play fair?
I don't get how you're scales are working here.

Posted by: ry at June 26, 2005 10:32 PM

I trashed Durbin for that

First, look at WaPo and NYT -- there is MUCH more Leftist anti-Rove coverage than anti-Durbin. And Durbin was first. The unfair injustice in the MSM treatment has to make anybody who wants to be fair be upset -- at anybody who is MORE anti-Rove than anti-Durbin.

Second, Durbin is on the ballot, HE was elected. Rove is just an operator. Bush-Bashers love to take any Rep's statements and claim a reason to oppose all Reps because of this one.
If the Republican Party were less polarizing and obnoxious,

You clearly do feel the obnoxiousness of Reps, though it's not so bad from my POV.
I missed your Durbin trashing -- no link?
Perhaps you meant:
Some people in the comments are sticking up for Dick Durbin and his comparison of Gitmo to the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. I don’t particularly feel like getting into an argument about this, which is the reason I never even mentioned the flap until now.

So, when elected Durbin (D) compares Gitmo to Nazis, you don't want to argue. When Rove says, truthfully, that Al-Jazeera is using Durbin's words, you decide to 1) exagerate Rove words into a misquote Liberals=Traitors
2) call Reps obnoxious.

You know I think you're the best writer on the web (AND I'm jealous!), but you're being intellectually unfair here.
(My dream ... write better than MJT)

As I read more, it's worse.
But feeding anti-American pathologies was not Dick Durbin’s intention. He intended to get more humane treatment for prisoners at Gitmo – an honorable objective I happen to sympathize with. That couldn’t be any more obvious than it is.

Making Bush look bad was Durbin's clear intention. You are NOT trashing him, you're excusing him.
Honesty check please.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 27, 2005 02:29 AM

Oh, and it's Grey with an E. The English spelling; chosen in 1984 for many reasons, including Tarzan and Gandalf. (Born Graessle).

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 27, 2005 02:34 AM

When the WTC was truck bombed in 1993, the Democrats in the White House and Congress did EXACTLY what Karl Rove said.

Posted by: Tim at June 27, 2005 06:54 AM

You can be right but behave in a way that makes you look wrong.

Durbin was getting roundly chastised for his extreme comment, culminating with an emotional apology on the Senate floor he 'clearly' didn't feel like he should have to make.

What does the political 'genius' do, step in with his extreme big mouth and save Durbin from his political hanging, removing the noose and putting around his own neck.

I, as a half-way sane conservative, would personally like to wring both of their loud mouth and decisive necks. This is not the time for out-of-control extremist to be walking around with gasoline cans at home.

Posted by: Jim R at June 27, 2005 08:16 AM

Decisive neck is divisive neck above.

Posted by: Jim R at June 27, 2005 08:19 AM

BTW. We all know it would be a cold day in hell(Iraq) that either one of these political hacks, or ANY of their family, would be walking the streets of Iraq with their gasoline cans, looking for terrorists.

Posted by: Jim R at June 27, 2005 08:24 AM

"If the Republican Party were less polarizing and obnoxious, t"

Oddd it was their being so obnoxious and polarising that led me. a Democrat from a family who had been so since before the Civil War to register Republican.

My epithany was during the 90s I knew that the Republican and Democratic plans at the time for Social Security were so close as to be almost the same and that the Repubican plan was in fact the same one that Clinton had proposed a few months before.

It was a Democrat TV Ad that sent me over the edge.

It showed a worried couple saying "But what will do about MOM?" and an elderly lady in the next room almost in tears.

I was disgusted and decided since I would be voting Republican I might as well BE Republican.

A Pary that finds it necessary to terrify elderly people with lies loses my vote.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at June 27, 2005 09:35 AM

American Right-Wingers - Iranian Right-Wingers - Saudi Right-Wingers - German Right-Wingers – Chilean Right-Wingers

They are all anti-Liberal…they are all fascist.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 27, 2005 09:53 AM

If the Republican Party were less polarizing and obnoxious, though, I might consider actually joining it.

Bah, the Dems are worse. There is no Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney, Ted Kennedy, etc. on the Right.

The only reason I haven't joined the GOP is that I want to be part of the libertarian swing vote, which I hope will continue to get stronger with voices like neolibertarian.net. I deplore the anti-libertarian Republicans positions, but the Dems make me so viscerally angry with their reflexive anti-Americanism, inability to support military action where it's needed to promote freedom, and anti-school choice position that hurts children in favor of teacher's unions that I can't see me voting Dem for a long, long time.

Posted by: TallDave at June 27, 2005 10:10 AM

People also forget the 1st WTC attack was a failed WMD attack. It was supposed to kill tens of thousands with cyanide gas.

Posted by: TallDave at June 27, 2005 10:13 AM

"A Pary that finds it necessary to terrify elderly people with lies loses my vote."

I guess Dan missed those Harry and Louise ads.

Posted by: Michael Farris at June 27, 2005 10:47 AM


As obnoxious as this is to say if you ever register Republican I can no longer read your work (like you'd really care). I say that, as a Republican, because I do not much like the Republican Party and only presently ally myself out of necessity to keep Sen. Spector making it through the Primaries as each time gets more and more difficult.

I respect your opinions and you cause me to think and question my own opinions and beliefs. However if you were to join in with this Republican Party as it stands today, then I believe I would have grossly misjudged you as a truly independent minded individual. Both these parties want nothing more than mindless minions with checkbooks and I'm sick of it. So I sincerely hope that, as a beacon of centrist hope, you never truly meant that you, under any circumstances, could join this party.

Posted by: Mike T. at June 27, 2005 01:33 PM

Good points Mike T. As someone who has followed this blog for a while I have always been a little bemused by MJT's apparent search for a new political home. I got turned off Instapundit when I realized that in a choice between principle and the GOP, he'll take the GOP 9 times out of 10. Totten seems to have more backbone. But since he realizes he got suckered by the Democrats, why is he so eager to find a new home? Reminds me of a person in a bad relationship desperate to find a new girlfriend to repeat the same mistakes with. Why vote for a party at all? Vote for the individual. One of the truly great achievements of American Democracy is that political parties are really fairly weak. Contrast the US with a country like Italy where choosing a political party defines your entire life - your friends, your patrons, your career. Independents are the life blood of America.

Posted by: vanya at June 27, 2005 02:19 PM

"And no, milk does not come from plastic bottles."

No, it doesn't. It comes from price-supported farmers in red states. The funds for the price supports are collected from the socialistic high-income office workers in New York and Silicon Valley and transferred to the independent-minded, rugged individualist farmer.

He then calls the socialistic office worker a socialist, elitist parasite and feels real good about himself because he doesn't need the damn gummint.

Posted by: Pug at June 27, 2005 02:55 PM

I guess Dan missed those Harry and Louise ads.

Actually I did miss them. Did a little search just now.

Care to explain how they compare with the image of an elderly woman in tears because she thinks her children will no longer be able to support her due to the Evil Republicans?

Posted by: Dan Kuaffman at June 27, 2005 07:04 PM

Oh get real Dan. Politicians of both sides use the same mix of fear, loathing, spin and other means of propaganda.

Hows a little "smoking gun will be mushroom cloud" to justify Iraq (when everyone knew they didnt have nukes)?
How could you ever vote for such people?

Posted by: Karl Jr. at June 27, 2005 07:29 PM

(when everyone knew they didnt have nukes)?

What BS. One of the main points of the Downing Street Memos is that it clearly shows Bush, and Blair, like Clinton, knew Saddam had WMDs. Later results indicate what they knew was wrong.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 28, 2005 12:37 AM


It seems most people realized that if he had any WMD, it wasn't enough to make a society a magnet for terrorism, torture & mayhem.

Only an evil mind would think terrorism, torture, rape and chaos could create liberty and freedom.

Even evil liberals know better.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 28, 2005 05:48 AM

A willingness to fight AGAINST terrorism, torture, rape and chaos is necessary, though not sufficient, for democracy.

The Left's increasing unwillingness to do the fighting, like in Rwanda, Congo, Darfur, Zimbabwe, is why humanity suffers so much there.

Good folk do nothing ... evil triumphs.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at June 28, 2005 09:15 AM

"What BS. One of the main points of the Downing Street Memos is that it clearly shows Bush, and Blair, like Clinton, knew Saddam had WMDs"

To quote the eloquent Tom Grey..."What BS".
WMD is a much broader category than nukes. They may have sincerely believed that SH had WMD - but they knew, with certainty, that he did not have nukes.

Posted by: Karl Jr. at June 28, 2005 09:52 AM

We will welcome you, or welcome you Back, Micheal. The Party of the People drifted away from the people, but with allies like Rove, we will return, and the Centerists WILL drive the train in the coming years, because of individuals like you.

Posted by: DaKruser at June 28, 2005 10:06 AM

"Oh get real Dan. Politicians of both sides use the same mix of fear, loathing, spin and other means of propaganda."

You are correct that subject came up during my recent holiday. I toured Italy with a Russian Excursion group. My girlfriend is from St Petersburg, and she arranged it.

I was asked about Bush and my political views.
I was honest and told them I voted for and supported Bush, one of my claims was that while ALL politicians lie over the years I have found the Democrats IMO to be the greates offenders in the realm of fear mongering, rabble rousing and appeals to class hatred.

But that is just my reacion YMMV

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at June 28, 2005 10:08 AM

Did Rove ever say "Democrats"? No. He did say some liberals.I believe he did say that. It is instructive seeing the Democrats fall over themselves condemning this, nary a whisper about Durbin's slander. Yeah, I'm really worried about Republican chances in 2006.

Posted by: Dave at June 28, 2005 04:24 PM

In that sense too, fascism is more plausibly linked to a set of "mobilizing passions" that shape fascist action than to a consistent and fully articulated philosophy. At bottom is a passionate nationalism. Allied to it is a conspiratorial and Manichean view of history as a battle between good and evil camps, between the pure and the corrupt, in which one's own community or nation has been the victim.

Posted by: NeoDude at June 28, 2005 04:29 PM

The above is from:

The Anatomy of Fascism
Robert O. Paxton


Posted by: NeoDude at June 28, 2005 04:31 PM

You're buying into the Democrats' lies again. Check the texts of the messages. They NEVER said that he had nukes. That is one of those urban DNC legends. They said that they thought he was working towards getting them, a reasonable assumption given the fact that he was 6-12 months away from having nuke weapons when Desert Storm started.

Posted by: exhelodrvr at June 28, 2005 04:34 PM

It is completely understandable how many would believe their candidate unfairly lost in the 2000 election, after winning the majority of votes but losing in the courts I can see how it could make me bitter.

Would I still be bitter after losing fair and square to the same candidate in 2004 that is still too far to the right for me? I hope I wouldn't.

For those Americans still re-living 2000 and finding it difficult to be objective with 'current' events, it is time to try.

Posted by: Jim R at June 28, 2005 07:23 PM

canon canon aparaty
sony sony
lg telefony gsm
samsung samsung
siemens siemens kuchnie
philips philips
creative sharp
sharp telewizory plazmowe

Posted by: Telewizory Plazmowe at August 18, 2005 04:50 AM

Hi I have been given the task of getting links for our websites thathave good page rank on the links directories.In addition we have many categories so your site will be place on an appropriate page. If you would like to trade links please send me your website details.Best Regards,seopro@walla.com
http://www2w.bravehost.com vs the best casino http://casino.vmedical.us new online casino
online poker
online gambling
online casinos
online casinos
online casinos
online poker
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online gambling
neteller casinos
online casino
online poker
online casino
internet poker
free online poker
texas holdem poker
online slots
online roulette
online blackjack
online casinos
online casino
online casino
online roulette
online poker
internet casinos
online slots
online blackjack
online poker

Posted by: online casinos at October 11, 2005 07:15 AM

online poker
online casino
online viagra sale
try viagra online
order viagra online
buy viagra online
order cialis online
free levitra online
cheap meridia online
buy xenical online
order propecia
order viagra online
tami flu
online poker
online poker
online poker

Posted by: online casino at October 25, 2005 08:07 AM

Very nice site sharp

Posted by: Sharp at November 6, 2005 10:06 AM

Adult Personals adult dating services sex dating adult
club erotic personals adult dating online internet
dating service adult singles of adult personal ads join free.

adult personals
Adult personals - online

adult dating

adult dating sex dating


adult personals sex dating

home security
home security


adult dating erotic personals sex
adult dating


adult personals adult dating


adult personals adult dating sex

adult dating
adult dating online adult


sex dating adult dating service


adult dating

adult personals

personals adult personals

adult sex
adult sex dating adult personals


adult singles adult personals
sex dating

discount airfare

adult dating
adult dating

casino gambling
casino gambling

sex adult

sex adult dating adult dating

online pharmacy

Posted by: adult dating at November 24, 2005 07:30 PM

new online poker site ! http://poker.trinitytc.com Poker

Posted by: poker at December 11, 2005 01:23 AM

new online poker site ! http://poker.trinitytc.com Poker

Posted by: poker at December 11, 2005 01:24 AM

AirfareLowest.net provides great tickets at cheap airfare prices for everyone. We have cheap hotels and cheap rental cars available. You can buy cruise tickets all over the worlds. Feel free to check out our prices so you can see that we have the cheapest prices for all tickets. We have all Airfare our tickets are all Lowest Airfare prices for all Cheap Airfare prices world wide. First Class Airfare is available so as Last Minute Airfare Available. We also provide Cheap Hotels for all Hotel Visitors and we do our own Hotels Reservations including Las Vegas Hotels, London Hotels, New York Hotels, Hilton Hotels, Orlando Hotels. We have all Rental Cars for all the location if you take a cruise ship plus cruise reviews available for all cruises. Plane Tickets available 24 hours a day on our secure server. A fare is the fee paid by a traveller allowing him or her to make use of a public transport system: rail, bus, taxi, etc. In the case of air transport, the term airfare is often used.
The fare paid is a contribution Hotels to the operational costs of the transport system involved, either partial (as is frequently the case with publicly supported systems) or total. We have Hitlton Hotels for all hotel motel places such as chicago hotels for hotels deals. Paris hotels are available all the time San Francisco Hotels 24 hours a day with Habbo hotels, for discount hotel rooms, plus all hawaii hotels, and sheraton hotels, plus malaysia hotels. It's great to spend time in radisson hotels with hotel rooms in New York city hotels plus miami hotels, and singapore hotels. We provide all kind of boston hotels for disney hotels and cancun hotels, plus discount vegas hotels for all our clients. San Diego hotels available with best western hotels in bangkok hotels, and cheap new orleans hotels, amesterdam hotels with great view of the city. Number one choice hotels at wyndham hotels for Prague Hotels and Hyatt Hotels, bellagio hotel. Doubletree hotels phuket hotels and westin hotels we have them all at all times plus toronto hotels, and niagara falls hotels. Many bus and rail systems in the United States recover only around one-third of their operational costs from fares.
The rules regarding how and when fares are to be paid and for how long they remain valid are many and varied. Rail and bus systems usually require the payment of fares on or before boarding. In the case of taxis and other vehicles for hire, payment is Cheap Rental Cars normally made at the end of the ride.
Some systems allow fare transfers: that is to say that a single payment permits travel within a particular geographical zone or time period. Such an arrangement is helpful for people who need to transfer from one route to another in order to reach their destination. Sometimes transfers are valid in one direction only, requiring a new fare to be paid for the return trip.

A Net dating service, also known as hispanic dating service online dating or internet dating, is an example of a dating system and allows individuals, couples and speed dating groups to meet online and possibly develop a social, romantic or sexual interracial dating relationship. Net dating services free dating services provide un-moderated lesbian dating matchmaking through the use of personal jewish dating computers and the Internet.
Such black dating services generally allow people to provide personal information, then search for other individuals using sex dating criteria such as age range, gender and location. Most sites allow members to upload photos of themselves dating lexington online and browse the photos of asian dating others. Sites may offer additional services, including webcasts, dating chat online chat, and message boards. Sites dating advice typically allow people to register for free but may offer services which require a monthly fee.
It seems that everywhere bbw dating you turn today been going to dating sites, people are online dating from site dating. More and more American singles use the online dating services to find love, online personals, friendship, or simply an online friend for matchmaking sites. We were launched to help online dating louisville singles of all ages for free online dating and free dating, religions such as christian datind christian dating services and sexual interests, find exactly what they're looking for with singles dating. Every personals or singles site gets reviewed before being posted here on dating web sites.We have availablegay dating, on our online dating sites, LDS Dating also available for everyone. We have dating tips for everyone, all ages dating available such as seniors dating , internet dating and also we have dating personals We provide all kind of dating such as singles for all singles websites so guys and girls can meet single girls to meet singles online. Many sites are broad-based, with members from a variety of backgrounds looking for different types of relationships. Other sites are more specific, based on the dating personals type of members, interests, location, or matchmaker dating relationship desired.U.S. any dating eharmony has href marriage match more online per service than residents spent $469.5 million on online dating and dating issue personals in 2004, the largest segment of “paid content” on the web, according to a study conducted by the Online free dating personals Publishers Association (OPA) and comScore Networks.

In terms of the dating of free dating site complete authoritative texts, there are dating idea three main versions of the relationship dating Hebrew Bible. There is the Masoretic text of the Torah, thought to be first indian dating assembled russian dating in the 4th century CE. The oldest chicago dating known copy (the oldest is the Aleppo Codex, the yahoo dating oldest complete match dating text is the Leningrad Codex) now dates to the christian dating services tenth century CE. There is the Septuagint, married dating which is a Greek translation of the Torah, made under Ptolemy in the third century BCE. The oldest dating or services copy of the Septuagint is dating direct centuries older than the seattle dating oldest complete Masoretic text, and texas dating fragments of the Septuagint date to the second century BCE. There is also the Samaritan Torah, which teen dating emerged after the Assyrian occupation of the web dating northern kingdom of Israel. The Peshitta, a translation of the Christian Bible into Syriac, a dating game variant of Aramaic, can be useful in determining latin dating authenticity of passages and hence help establish dates. The earliest known copy of the Peshitta dates to 445-460 CE.

Online casino, also recognized as virtual casinos, is the online description of land-based casinos. They permit you to play casino games through the internet casino. Some online casinos supply various games such as casino gambling, while others only offer only one type of game. Online poker is also very well-liked and there are many devoted companies that offer this activity such as casino bonus, free casino games, grand casino and world wide such as uk online casino, las vegas casino.

Online casinos can for sure have games offer better odds than casino on net. Land casinos on slots and other formats where the chance of captivating is resolute by the house. Table games like casino gaming, blackjack which have an casino poker,  recognized house edge: for a given set of rules, they offer the similar payout, online or offline. Reliability and faith are hard to gambling casino online establish. To solve this issue, many online casinos purchase their software from well-known best casino, companies such as Wager Works, Microgaming, OddsOn, Playtech and Cryptologic, though a little study casino on line, into credentials of any e-commerce site you plan to use is gambling casino, ordinary sense. These software companies use a casino online gambling random number maker online casino slot to ensure that the casino online gambling, numbers, cards or dice appear randomly. All reputable companies in service in a regulated environment use robust random number generators.

For this particular online casino game example, this would mean that a player depositing $100 would start with $200 in his account. He must make $5000 in wagers online+casino before withdrawing. This can be played at a game such as blackjack.

online pharmacy, pharmacy, canadian pharmacy, vicodin online pharmacy, canada pharmacy, phentermine online pharmacy, online pharmacy valium, xanax online pharmacy, ultram online pharmacy, pharmacy online, alprazolam online pharmacy, discount pharmacy, mexican pharmacy, internet pharmacy, mail order pharmacy, canada online pharmacy, overseas pharmacy, foreign pharmacy, phentermine pharmacy, tesco pharmacy jobs, on line pharmacy, pharmacy technician, online+pharmacy, international pharmacy, viagra pharmacy, pharmacy job, canadian online pharmacy, pet pharmacy, pharmacy discount, canadian pharmacy online, pharmacy drug, pharmacy canadian, pharmacy order tramadol, cvs pharmacy, pharmacy drugs, lortab online pharmacy, lortab pharmacy, mexico pharmacy, vicodin pharmacy, pharmacy jobs, ultram pharmacy, online pharmacy affiliate program, soma online pharmacy, pharmacy on line, canadian discount pharmacy, discount online pharmacy, viagra online pharmacy, adderol online pharmacy, canadian pharmacy affiliate, online discount pharmacy, vicodin+online+pharmacy, online pharmacy tramadol, canadian pharmacy on line, diazepam online pharmacy, pharmacy schools, online pharmacy no prescription, online canadian pharmacy, valium pharmacy, foreign online pharmacy, hydrocodone, online pharmacy, cialis online pharmacy, wholesale pharmacy, cvs pharmacy career, phentermine+online+pharmacy, brooks pharmacy, line pharmacy, online+pharmacy+valium, xanax+online+pharmacy, alprazolam+online+pharmacy, ultram+online+pharmacy, pharmacy school, walgreens pharmacy, international online pharmacy, mexican pharmacy online, hydrocodone pharmacy, pharmacy tech, best online pharmacy, online internet pharmacy, ambien pharmacy, online doctor pharmacy, pharmacy no prescription hydrocodone, online pharmacy celebrex, online pharmacy medicine, line pharmacy phentermine, pharmacy technician schools, canadian on line pharmacy, online pharmacy pay pal, pharmacy tech online, online pharmacy canada, canada+pharmacy, mexican pharmacy ortho novum cheap florida online pharmacy, canada in online pharmacy, law online pharmacy, aldara online pharmacy, online pharmacy technician, online pharmacy technician course, online pharmacy florida delivery phentermine, pharmacy tech online schools, pharmacy technicians

Posted by: Airfare at January 5, 2006 10:28 PM

wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling

wow power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
rolex replica
replica rolex
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling
power leveling

中高年 転職
アルバイト 求人情報
競馬 予想
東京都 墓地
パチンコ 攻略



Posted by: cvbcb at December 25, 2007 09:26 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member


"I'm flattered such an excellent writer links to my stuff"
Johann Hari
Author of God Save the Queen?

Andrew Sullivan
Author of Virtually Normal

"Brisk, bracing, sharp and thoughtful"
James Lileks
Author of The Gallery of Regrettable Food

"A hard-headed liberal who thinks and writes superbly"
Roger L. Simon
Author of Director's Cut

"Lively, vivid, and smart"
James Howard Kunstler
Author of The Geography of Nowhere

Contact Me

Send email to michaeltotten001 at gmail dot com

News Feeds


Link to Michael J. Totten with the logo button


Tip Jar


Terror and Liberalism
Paul Berman, The American Prospect

The Men Who Would Be Orwell
Ron Rosenbaum, The New York Observer

Looking the World in the Eye
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

In the Eigth Circle of Thieves
E.L. Doctorow, The Nation

Against Rationalization
Christopher Hitchens, The Nation

The Wall
Yossi Klein Halevi, The New Republic

Jihad Versus McWorld
Benjamin Barber, The Atlantic Monthly

The Sunshine Warrior
Bill Keller, The New York Times Magazine

Power and Weakness
Robert Kagan, Policy Review

The Coming Anarchy
Robert D. Kaplan, The Atlantic Monthly

England Your England
George Orwell, The Lion and the Unicorn