The rest of Rove's speech

[dude1394]

With all of the caterwauling going on about Rove's soundbites, this blog has the rest of the speech. Pretty good stuff for conservatives, I wish I had been there. We've come a long way baby and were not finished yet.

theshapeofdays
------------

Think for a moment how much has been achieved by conservatives in the last 40 years. The conservative movement has gone from a small, principled opposition to a broad, inclusive movement that is self-assured, optimistic, forward-leaning, and dominant.

Four decades ago conservatism was relegated to the political wilderness — and today conservatism is the guiding philosophy in the White House, the Senate, the House, and in governorships and state legislatures throughout America.

More importantly, we have seen the great rise of a great cause. Conservatives have achieved a tremendous amount in the past decades — but there is more, much more, that remains to be done. This afternoon I will devote my remarks to the President’s victory in November; the ideas that will continue to work in our favor; and the state of contemporary liberalism.

The political realignment in America is moving ahead; here are some of the reasons I believe this is happening.

To you, the Presidential election probably seems like it took place a long time ago; I know that’s certainly how it seems to me. But it was a key election in the history of our country — and there are important things we can learn from it.

Recall that in 2004, we faced a united opposition which outspent our side by over $40 million in a time of controversial war and a recovering, but not recovered economy.

The 2004 election was a steep political mountain to climb, but the President scaled it — and he did so with energy, passion, decency, and an unwavering commitment to principle. What is significant about November’s victory is not simply that the President won, but how he won.

In the 2004 election, President Bush placed all his chips on the table. There was no trimming on issues, no “campaign conversion,” no backing away from Social Security and tax code reform. The President persistently made the case for an “ownership society”; championed a culture of life; defended the institution of marriage; stood with the people of Iraq in their passage to liberty; remained committed to spreading democracy in the Middle East; and continued to aggressively wage and win the war on global terrorism.

President Bush showed himself as he is. He wanted a referendum on what he has accomplished — and most importantly, on what he hopes to achieve.

The victory itself was significant. President Bush received more votes than any other candidate in American history. He’s the first President since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He increased his popular vote total by 11.6 million votes since 2000 — more than four-and-a-half times President Clinton’s increase from 1992 to 1996. President Bush improved his percentage in all but three states. He improved his vote in 87 percent of all counties and carried more than 80 percent of the counties — and he won in 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties and George W. Bush is also the first President since FDR to be re-elected while his party gained seats in the House and Senate — and the first Republican President since 1924 to get re-elected while re-electing Republican House and Senate majorities. And he won with a higher percentage than any Democratic Presidential candidate has received since 1964.

[Mavdog]

Sorry, but Rove's comments are just as outlandish as Michael Moore's. If one sees what Moore says as rubbish and not factually based, so the same is true of Rove:

"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."

odd, but all those "liberals" voted to go into Afganistan. In fact, they supported the President all the way...until Iraq. I guess Rove is attempting to use the attack on Iraq in with the War on Terror, a mirage that he and his cohorts continue to try and make into a fact.

"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."

oh yeah, Durbin's motive was to hurt the US serviceman. What a bunch of crock. Durbin's speech was a plea for the Bush Administration to adhere to the rule of law in its treatment of prisioners, which will HELP the US servicemen by stopping the endless news articles which paint them negatively.

[dude1394]

Moveon didn't and that was the specific group he is referring to of which many,many examples exists on the web that this is exactly what they did. Since the democrats embraced moveon and michael (the maggot) moore then they are also tainted by the left. Can't have it both ways.

But hey, if the democrats want to finally admit they are the liberal party, so be it. Step out there and defend it.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Sorry, but Rove's comments are just as outlandish as Michael Moore's.

Really??

martinipundit

Did he say that he hates Democrats and everything they stand for? Did he say that they’re losers and liars? Did he call them miserable failures? Did he say they’ve never made an honest living? Did he hold phony impeachment hearings? Did he compare them to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394

Really??

martinipundit

yes, really. Both of them are using the tragedy of 9/11 as a tool for their own benefit. Shame on them. Both Moore's and Rove's using the tragedy are repulsive.

A second analogy is to the comments of Howard Dean and these of Rove, Both are (IMO) over the top and intended to rally their base with an idea of showing that they are tough. If you thought Dean was over the top, so too is Rove.