Speech to Washington Press Club

[Zeno]

The only difference would be that elected officials would brag about how large their mandate is to enact whatever imbecilic promises they lied to their constituency about.

-Zeno

PS if only 10% turned out, the outcome would be the same.

[Cyrus]

Thanks for posting it.

P.S. I read with amusement the comebacks at your elementary observation that the U.S. would be a different country and with a different kind of leadership if 75% of eligible voters actualy did vote. (Maybe instead of this being "the stupidest thing ever said on the internet", they meant to say "the most obvious". In which case, right they are.)

[Jimbo]

No Cyrus, I believe they know the difference between stupid and obvious. To think otherwise is not exactly obvious but _ _ _ _ _ _.

For my two cents it is completely incorrect.

[andyfox]

>>For all of the ugliness and tragedy of 9-11, there was a brief period afterward where I held a great hope, in the midst of the tears and shocked faces of New Yorkers, in the midst of the lethal air we breathed as we worked at Ground Zero, in the midst of my children's terror at being so close to this crime against humanity, in the midst of all this, I held on to a glimmer of hope in the naive assumption that something good could come out of it.<<

According to Robbins nothing good has come out of 9/11. Ok I wonder what he expected? Needless to say I disagree.

He says what he expected in what you quote below.

“I imagined our leaders seizing upon this moment of unity in America, this moment when no one wanted to talk about Democrat versus Republican, white versus black, or any of the other ridiculous divisions that dominate our public discourse.”

I hardly think that Robbins believes that the division between Republicans and Democrats is ridiculous.

He says he thinks it's ridiculous, especially at "this moment of unity." Certainly I think we'd all agree that bickering between the two political parties in the immediately aftermath of 9/11 is ridiculous.

“ I imagined our leaders going on television telling the citizens that although we all want to be at Ground Zero, we can't, but there is work that is needed to be done all over America.”

Wrong, they did.

But not the kind of work Robbins is talking about. See below.

“ Our help is needed at community centers to tutor children, to teach them to read. Our work is needed at old-age homes to visit the lonely and infirmed; in gutted neighborhoods to rebuild housing and clean up parks, and convert abandoned lots to baseball fields.”

Why did this change with 9/11? I wonder where this came from? Is he saying that if we would have devoted more time to this work 9/11 would not have happened? Is this his prescription for preventing another 9/11? Does he realize who was responsible for 9/11?

Robbins is saying it was a unique moment in our national history. A moment when partisanship and "ridiculous" difference among citizens should/could have been put aside to take advantage of the unprecedented feelings of unity and vulnerability to do the kinds of these kinds of things.

“I imagined leadership that would take this incredible energy, this generosity of spirit and create a new unity in America born out of the chaos and tragedy of 9/11, a new unity that would send a message to terrorists everywhere: If you attack us, we will become stronger, cleaner, better educated, and more unified. You will strengthen our commitment to justice and democracy by your inhumane attacks on us. Like a Phoenix out of the fire, we will be reborn.”

Is he on drugs or something? First of all it’s open to debate whether or not we have as Robbins put’s it, “become stronger, cleaner, better educated, and more unified.” Apparently Robbins doesn’t think so and apparently Robbins believes that “our commitment to justice and democracy” has been lessened somehow. Funny how he’s in the vast MINORITY of US citizens who tacitly supported Saddam Hussein and his oppression which was a far cry from a democratic government. Second of all does Robbins honestly believe that a military response against al-Qaeda was ill advised? Does he honestly believe that if Bush would have come out after 9/11 and stated that we will devote more resources to education, to urban renewal, and to the environment without a military response that it would be a deterrent to further terrorist attacks by groups like al-Qaeda who are a product of state sponsored terrorism?

Those who were against the war did not tacitly support Saddam Hussein. This is a ridiculous argument. President Bush is against a war with North Korea. Does he tacitly support Kim? I don't recall Robbins or anyone else saying that Saddam Hussein had a democratic government. I do not know whether or not he supported the attack in Afghanistan.

“And then came the speech: You are either with us or against us.”

I'm not sure what speech he's referring to but if it was one that Bush gave to a joint session of Congress that speech was widely praised by both Democrats and Republicans. Ok according to Robbins the Republicans led by Bush are responsible for what Robbins refers to as the lost opportunity for a more unified nation. He must be on drugs! Has he seen the polls lately? The Democrats bear no responisbility for devisive statements and actions? Could he honestly say that Democratics leaders like Daschle, Bird and Kennedy have not promoted class warfare and offered nothing but criticism for the Bush administration regarding Iraq while offering nothing positive themselves? One can only note that the Democratic leadership has been strangely silent recently about the war's outcome.

Bush said several times you're either for us or against us. I believe it might have been in the first speech to Congress after 9/11 (which, though I disagreed with much of its content, I thought was one of the greatest speeches I ever heard). It's the same argument the terrorists make. It's the same argument Joe McCarthy made. It's disgusting.

It seems Robbins does believe the Democrats have been divisive, that's why he called the Democratic/Republican division ridiculous. As for the Democratic "leadership," the less said the better. I imagine that's why Robbins did not mention it. I agree with you that the phrase "Democratic leadersnip" is a non-sequiter.

“And the bombing began. And the old paradigm was restored as our leader encouraged us to show our patriotism by shopping and by volunteering to join groups that would turn in their neighbor for any suspicious behavior.”

Ok so in an earlier part of his speech Robbins mentions the ridiculous dividing lines between the political parties and now takes a gratuitous shot at Bush basically calling him a Nazi. Is this an example how Robbins would promote unity? I used to think these kind of statements were incredible but I’ve become anaesthetized to them now.

Where does Robbins call Bush a Nazi? He said our response has been bombing, which is true. He said there was a call by our leader to go out and spend money, which is true. He said there was a program proposal to spy on one's neighbors, which is true.

“In the 19 months since 9-11, we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred.”

A rather subjective, divisive, and politically motivated comment I would say.

Our demoocracy has been compromised. I'll leave it for brad to elaborate

“ Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A unified American public has grown bitterly divided, and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state.”

Has Tim seen the polls lately? Wait until November of 2004 Tim and you’ll see how unified the country really is.

The country was evenly divided about going to war with Iraq before the war. If the Republicans do well in 2004, it will be because of the Democratic "leadership" discussed above.

Why so upset about what an actor says? Shouldn't we be more worried about what the Bushes and the Daschles say anyway.

[Cyrus]

"I believe they know the difference between stupid and obvious. To think otherwise is not exactly obvious but [stupid]. For my two cents it is completely incorrect."

So, the result of a 45% voter turnout is bound to be the same as a 75% turnout. You are assuming that the 75% portion of the voters will be made up from the same kind of people as the 45% portion -- only in a larger quantity. This might be a valid assumption in a theoretical statistical model but it doesn't conform to the reality of American elections. The voting pattern studies have shown that the lower we go in financial and social status, the lower the turnout. If we had a truly representative sample of the eligible voters' populace, I wouldn't be as sure as you that results in local or national elections in the U.S. would be unaffected.

Here's for instance, about age, the table which shows that actual voting percentages are way too tilted towards the older generations:

Source : U.S. Census Bureau
Release date: August 1996
<pre><font class="small">code:</font><hr>

Election Years, by Age :
November 1966 to 1994




__________________________________________________ _________________
Age (in years)
18-24 25-44 45-64 65+
__________________________________________________ _________________

VOTING
1994 20.1 39.4 56.7 61.3
1990 20.4 40.7 55.8 60.3
1986 21.9 41.4 58.7 60.9
1982 24.8 45.4 62.2 59.9
1978 23.5 43.1 58.5 55.9
1974 23.8 42.2 56.9 51.4
1970 30.4 51.9 64.2 57.0
1966 31.1 53.1 64.5 56.1

</pre><hr>

As to race, in the 1994 U.S. Congressional Elections, 21.1% of the registered White population voted, 17.4% of the Blacks and just 10.1% of the Latinos. Taking into account that the latter two groups are already way behind in registering, this makes for quite a non-representative result.

For some of the reasons behind low voter turnout and possible remedies, this is an interesting article:

Turnout Decline in the U.S.

[adios]

I wrote:

"The Democrats bear no responisbility for devisive statements and actions? Could he honestly say that Democratics leaders like Daschle, Bird and Kennedy have not promoted class warfare and offered nothing but criticism for the Bush administration regarding Iraq while offering nothing positive themselves?"


It's not the criticism that bothers me, it's the motivation that does. Perhaps at some point a rational discussion of the Democratic Party policy for post war Iraq would be useful. In the same vein perhaps a rational discussion on what the Democrats policy is on the War on Terrorism is would be helpful. Sorry I see much of the criticism by Democrats as an excercise in extreme political opportunism rather than an excercise in offering a dissenting, alternative view of what policy should be. So my question is what is the Democratic party's policy regarding state sponsored terrorism? What is the Democratic party's policy regarding post war Iraq? Ok many could point to the Republicans treatment of Clinton and state that Bush is fair game in light of that treatment. I believe that yes the Republicans behavior during the Clinton administration left a lot to be desired. When I view the behavior of Congressional Democratic leadership a lot of it seems like "payback" for what the Republicans did in the Clinton administration. Could be wrong but I'm fairly certain I'm right about that. Comments?

[Cyrus]

"It's not the criticism that bothers me, it's the motivation that does."

If it's the motivation of the anti-war crowd in general, it's probably unfair to lump together such a diverse crowd. If it's the motivation of career politicians, be they Democrats or Republicans, I cannot disagree.

But I thought everybody was a little more cynical nowdays about what motivates a career politician. At best, it's the polls.

[Bubmack]

I could not agree more

[andyfox]

The two leading Democratic critics of the President's policies have been Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd. Neither has any political future, so I don't see how their critiques can be said to be politically motivated. The rest of the Democratic "leadership" has basically been of the lapdog variety.

As I've posted before, the only Democrat I've heard who has exposited logical and well-thought out policy choices for the coming years is Gary Hart. And he has virtually no chance of getting the nomination.

[adios]

As well as many others. So you're saying that Kennedy and Byrd will not and have no motivation to make politically opportune comments? Ok.