Cheney says terrorists will attack if Kerry wins

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

I"Two Americas" needs to have a non-arbitrary delineation point.

Why?

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Why?

For it to have any meaning. If I told you that Americans were divided into two groups: those taller 5’ 4" , and those shorter, I would not have told you anything, really, about Americans at all.

The “Two Americas” theme is simple class warfare rhetoric. I don’t necessarily blame Edwards for using that tactic, if he thinks it works. But I ain’t buying it.

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

For it to have any meaning. If I told you that Americans were divided into two groups: those taller 5’ 4" , and those shorter, I would not have told you anything, really, about Americans at all.

The “Two Americas” theme is simple class warfare rhetoric. I don’t necessarily blame Edwards for using that tactic, if he thinks it works. But I ain’t buying it.

But it’s not really a scientific question. We can view Americans as being divided into several ethnic groups; or regional subcultures; or religious groups; or as being divided into two groups, those who are deeply and traditionally religious (whether Catholic, Protestant or Jewish) and those who are not. All those divisions are real and socially and politically important. The dividing lines might be impossible to delineate with scientific precision, but there’s no question they are there, and they have consequences.

And our class divisions also are real and important. It is a fact that we have a quasi-hereditary elite ruling class – what Michael Lind has described as the “white overclass” – which generally pursues its own economic and political interests as a class regardless of some internal divisions over cultural issues; and it is also a fact that the economic and political interests of the ruling class are not always the same as those of the rest of us; and it is also a fact that since Bush took office the ruling class has been getting its own way on just about every issue it cares about. In this sence there are two Americas: the elite and everybody else. If Edwards is trying to stir up class-based conflict along those lines, nothing could be healthier for America right now.

Tell me this: What would you consider to be a valid “non-arbitrary delineation point” showing the existence of “two Americas”? What statistical proof would you accept? What numbers?

[Lemur866]

Here’s a more complete transcript at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040907-8.html

We made decisions at the end of World War II, at the beginning of the Cold War, when we set up the Department of Defense, and the CIA, and we created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and undertook a bunch of major policy steps that then were in place for the next 40 years, that were key to our ultimate success in the Cold War, that were supported by Democrat and Republican alike – Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerry Ford and a whole bunch of Presidents, from both parties, supported those policies over a long period of time. We’re now at that point where we’re making that kind of decision for the next 30 or 40 years, and it’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States, and that we’ll fall back into the pre-9/11 mind set if you will, that in fact these terrorist attacks are just criminal acts, and that we’re not really at war. I think that would be a terrible mistake for us.

We have to understand it is a war. It’s different than anything we’ve ever fought before. But they mean to do everything they can to destroy our way of life. They don’t agree with our view of the world. They’ve got an extremist view in terms of their religion. They have no concept or tolerance for religious freedom. They don’t believe women ought to have any rights. They’ve got a fundamentally different view of the world, and they will slaughter – as they demonstrated on 9/11 – anybody who stands in their way. So we’ve got to get it right. We’ve got to succeed here. We’ve got to prevail. And that’s what is at stake in this election. (Applause.)

Hmmm. Sounds a lot less inflamatory than what is being reported. In fact, it sounds like this quote is being deliberately taken out of context. It’s pretty clear he didn’t mean that the danger if Kerry is elected is that we’ll be attacked by terrorists, the danger is that we might be attacked by terrorists and Kerry will wimp out. Sure, it’s a slam on Kerry, maybe an unfair attack on Kerry, but it isn’t what you all are claiming it is.