Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Assessing Karl Rove

The decision by White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove to leave his post at the end of the month has set off a furious debate over what his lasting impact will be on the Republican Party specifically and national politics more generally.

Karl Rove
How will history judge the record of "Bush's Brain." (AFP/Getty Images)

The Post's Anne Kornblut and Michael Shear wrote a piece in today's Post addressing just that question.

The duo write: "[Rove's] advocates credit him with devising a winning strategy twice in a row for a presidential candidate who seemed to start out with myriad weaknesses. His detractors blame Rove for a style of politics that deepened divisions in the country, even after the unifying attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

So, which side is right? The Fix did a little digging yesterday to answer that surprisingly tough question.

Until 2005 Rove was viewed either positively or neutrally by Republican consultants and strategists. He had played a central role in electing and reelecting a president, a feat that even those predisposed not to like Rove gave him grudging credit for.

"You win two presidential elections that's good and you get credit for that," said one senior Republican consultant granted anonymity to candidly assess Rove's impact. But the source added, "[Rove] is a great example of the fact that the line between genius and dunce is a fine one."

In other words, it's better to be lucky than good.

Between Bush's 2004 reelection and the disastrous 2006 midterms, the perception of Rove began to shift. One senior party strategist recounted with amazement how Rove truly believed that Republicans would shock the pundits in 2006 and either break even or make gains in the Congress. The source said Rove regularly chided candidates last cycle for their unwillingness to have the president make a stop in their states. "He was never willing to admit the president was a drag on our candidates," the source added.

For many, the struggles of Rove and the White House over the last few years were a natural result of the back-to-the-base strategy that was credited with reelecting President Bush in the face of increasingly unpopular war and Americans' skepticism about the health of the economy.

"Karl's discipline and willingness to use 'base' politics made 'W' president," explained one high level Republican strategist who was granted anonymity to offer a candid analysis of Rove. "These same qualities contributed to Bush being one of the least-effective presidents and one who presided over the very shrinking of the GOP base."

Not everyone in the party agrees with that assessment. Sara Taylor, who worked under Rove as political director at the White House, insisted that Rove was not pursuing a narrow, base-focused strategy following Bush's re-election.

"If you look at what he was pushing, it runs counter to peoples' claims that he was just a base guy," said Taylor, noting Rove's advocacy for Social Security reform, education reform and a comprehensive immigration policy. "All of these issues that Karl pushed on behalf of the president were not only the right policy but also would broaden the party," she said.

What then is Rove's ultimate legacy? That depends on elections to come. If Democrats regain the White House in 2008 and grow their congressional majorities in the House and the Senate, it will almost certainly be laid at the feet of Bush and Rove. If, however, Rove's prediction that Bush's approval ratings will improve as his terms winds to a close comes to pass, Republican prospects would likely improve both at the presidential and congressional levels -- developments that would surely improve Rove's standing when the history of the Bush administration gets written.

What is not in doubt is that Karl Rove is -- without question -- the most prominent political strategist of the past few decades. Like him or hate him, everyone has an opinion about him, and debates between the two camps are likely to continue for years to come.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 14, 2007; 3:00 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog: Is Richardson Ready for Primetime?
Next: Fixin' For a Break

Comments

Rove is just the latest political hack to have gained and now relinquished power. He was more successful in Texas than he ever was nationally, and far from a "political genius." He went two for four -- 50% -- on the national stage, having lost in 2000 (indisputably, losing the popular vote, and disputably, losing the electoral vote) and 2006, and having won in 2002 and 2004. Nor are his strategies original. Playing to the base and dividing the center only works in the absence of one of two key premises: sufficient economic growth and the avoidance of a foreign policy fiasco (which help explain Republican successes in 2002 and 2004). However, because by 2006 (and likely through 2008) Iraq was perceived to constitute a foreign policy fiasco, Republicans were trounced in the recent midterm elections and, lacking some historically intervening event between now and November 2008, the same will hold true in the next election. This notion has been well documented by political historians long before the emergence of Karl Rove.

Posted by: Mike | August 16, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

I believe Rove will spend the next few months trying to find a way to attack Hillary. Thats the reason he left. Well, that and the fact that he helped create the worst administration since Carter. The only original member left with any importance in Rice. The ATT General should be gone, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Yep, Hillary is his new mission. And I bet she is just scared to death!!!

Posted by: James | August 16, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Even though he is hated by many I really have a lot of respect for what Rove has accomplished as the Presidents political adviser and if he writes a book I will reading it post haste. I wonder if Mr. Rove will stay in DC or if he will move on. There has been some talk on the web about Rove's house in DC. A lot more information on his DC is available at hhttp://www.housefront.com/PropertyDetail.aspx?qry=339813&propertyID=700933

Posted by: Jen, Denver CO | August 16, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

tHERE IS ONLY ONE RUFUS. aND MANY THAT ASIPERE to be him. :)

I have been many places and done many things. I do not limit myself. "YOu are not you job."

I'll take that as a compliment. I'm so enlightened I HAVE to be many people?

Thank you

Posted by: RUFUS | August 16, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

One World Many Rufi

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 8:08 PM | Report abuse

"It's easy to shoot down other ideas, but how about being part of the solution?"

I'm just pointing out holes here. I'm not a nuculer engineer. I don't have the answer to energy consumption. Noone here does. If they did they would be busy working on it , not blogging.

I'm just saying. Storing it forever is no good. Shooting it into space is no good, unless we can by some miricle clear the asteriod belts. Don't offer up my state. Is the state going to pay me to house it, like alaska with their oil share revenue. Then you might win me over. :)

Just kidding. You people know me better than that.

I don't think nuculer is the solution. The solution isn't here yet. We are not God's. We don't have the answers to all questions yet.

I'll tell you this though. Oil is not worth what we pay. We could find a solution if we world together as a world. Oil sharing and such. But corporate control of such a valuble resource is not the way either. Your not going to like my answer JD, but my answer would solve ALL of our problems. You just have to lost your fear and leave the past in the past. You know the answer as I do.

ONE WOrlD ONE PEOPLE

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

"It's easy to shoot down other ideas, but how about being part of the solution?"

I'm just pointing out holes here. I'm not a nuculer engineer. I don't have the answer to energy consumption. Noone here does. If they did they would be busy working on it , not blogging.

I'm just saying. Storing it forever is no good. Shooting it into space is no good, unless we can by some miricle clear the asteriod belts. Don't offer up my state. Is the state going to pay me to house it, like alaska with their oil share revenue. Then you might win me over. :)

Just kidding. You people know me better than that.

I don't think nuculer is the solution. The solution isn't here yet. We are not God's. We don't have the answers to all questions yet.

I'll tell you this though. Oil is not worth what we pay. We could find a solution if we world together as a world. Oil sharing and such. But corporate control of such a valuble resource is not the way either. Your not going to like my answer JD, but my answer would solve ALL of our problems. You just have to lost your fear and leave the past in the past. You know the answer as I do.

ONE WOLRD ONE PEOPLE

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 6:20 PM | Report abuse

OK rufus (if it's really you posting this time). What's your solution for getting rid of the waste? Not just future but current stuff, sitting in cooling ponds at all the nuke plants around the country.

Yucca was picked for a lot of good reasons (geologically stable, miles from nowhere, owned by the feds, land good for nothing else except bombing runs out of Nellis).

It's easy to shoot down other ideas, but how about being part of the solution?

Posted by: JD | August 15, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Hey I live in Reno. Don't stick it our here with us. all the countries waste? To much to much.

That's the gop way though. Reminds me of that bank commercial when the little guy really is lttile. GOp gop gop.

Your time is almost up. I can't wait. It will be better than 50 christmas's

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

"OK, Hunter taking over again. I suppose that was devolving a little too rapidly into silliness (on both sides.)

Here's the thing. Someday, Karl Rove will die. When that day comes, we will all have to pretend he was something other than a piss-headed man hated by everyone but those he found useful, and as matter of convention we will have to treat him with momentary respect. So let's write his epitaph now, while being as mean to him is still perfectly allowable and much more sporting.

Karl Rove was not a "great political mind". His sole contribution to the nation was getting the worst president in history elected on a campaign of unabashed bullcrap, then proceeding to help guide that president into foreign and domestic policy failures at every opportunity. If that's what passes for Republican brilliance, then it explains... well, pretty much everything, actually. Point taken.

Rove's oft-touted "genius" is nothing more than single-minded amorality. In campaigns and in the administration, he was and is unapologetically amoral in service to his own cause or that of his client: his "genius" is that he has consistently been willing to go farther, be meaner, and invent more astonishing lies than would be done by anyone in politics with a thin remaining threads of a conscience. From smearing John McCain's children with race-baiting taunts to attacking the careers and wives of critics to helping corrupt the most basic and foundational premises of the the United States Department of Justice, nothing has ever been considered "out of bounds". If a malevolent action is not taken -- such as ratcheting up the already venomous Republican rhetoric against immigrants -- it is done only in service to calculated poll numbers, never as a nod to basic morality or patriotism or human decency.

Under Rove, White House policies have revolved around manufacturing false frames for the press, and punishing reporters who stray too far from those frames. Terrorism, war, social security, the economy, government oversight: the defining characteristic of each administration campaign was an almost (but not quite) comical divorce of the asserted statements and the actual facts. Rove's "genius" was that he could plan and launch a campaign announcing that the sky was green, and the mechanisms of the entire executive branch, from press flunkies to cabinet secretaries to low-level political appointees, would spring into action as coordinated effort to assert the fiction as fact. Government reports would be rewritten to reflect the assertion, and government scientists and experts who objected could either pipe down or get out. Faxes would go out to the media, and Fox News would start calling the sky green. Fred Barnes would pen columns devoted to its brilliant emerald hue. Rush Limbaugh would assert it as transparently obvious, and rail against the seventy percent of America that dared look out their window. The President would travel from town to town, meeting with hand-chosen groups of Americans willing to sign statements that they did, in fact, believe in the new Healthy Green Skies initiative. And if you, American citizen, were left out of the fun, who the hell cares? You are not part of the fifty-one percent of Americans that matter in the complex spreadsheet that masqueraded as the only consistent White House apparatus of national policy, these last six years. Half the country matters: the other half is obstacle.

Rove's "genius" has been that he has, in campaigns and government, been entirely unencumbered by morality or shame. Rove's "genius" has been a complete inability to even distinguish between campaigning and government. Rove's only contribution to politics has been to bemusedly mock the very notion of a government existing to serve the people, instead harnessing it at every opportunity to act in mere service of politics for politics' sake. He at no point has shown interest in guiding his president in service to his nation: his strategies of constant national division, most often appearing as meanspirited campaigns of prejudice and fearmongering, were constant reminders that this White House had absolutely no intention of governing all the people, and the politicization of even the most essential tasks of government made sure that they did not do so even as accident.

A great political mind? Hardly. He could carve up constituencies with the best of them, and divide the country as easily as columns on a spreadsheet -- and with no more thought -- but Karl Rove was no more a political genius than Jeffrey Dahmer was a brilliant culinary artist. Being the most unapologetically unethical person in the room does not make you avant-garde. Time and time again, though, it's been proven to make you famous.


Having said all that, this is hardly a fitting epitaph, because it's not like Rove's going to be going anywhere. Let's see, can we fathom any possible reason why a lifelong political operative would leave a lame-duck White House for a private career in the very months when the next presidential election cycle is finally starting to simmer?

Hmm. That's a tough o"

Posted by: Hunter | August 15, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

You don't have to 'get rid of it'. you store it safely in Yucca Mtn, 90 miles N of Vegas. Better there than in 50 different sites around the country, as far as protecting it from terrorists, monitoring leaks, etc.

One third of the land in the US is Federally owned. Time to make some use of it.

Posted by: JD | August 15, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"He is offering that as a solution because currently there is now way to get rid of it. In the past they buried it, bad times. "

Exuce me. Currently there is no way to get rid of nuculer waste, safely that is.

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

The energy concerns for the US will,imo, have to be addressed in the very near future. I vagely remember a article years ago about the oil coming thru the pipeline and we were selling it mainly to Japan and very little used here in the US. The oil shale technology is a few years away as far as the cost of converting is concerned. The upper midwest has the most available, according to reports.

Posted by: lylepink | August 15, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

He is offering that as a solution because currently there is now way to get rid of it. In the past they buried it, bad times.

MikeB, being the smart guy he is, is offering a long-term solution. I don't agree with him but that's fine.

If we found a way to get it out of our galaxy I might change my mind. But merely shooting it into space and it jsut comes nack. It would never clear the asteriod belts. Then eventually we woul dhave nucueler waste falling from the sky. No thanks. We need another option.

I'm just happy gop'ers are finally admitting we went to iraq for the oil

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of allowing "amatures to run the debate" that's a good reason why engineers should stay engineering.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Mr Wizard, aka MikeB, if the glass blocks are no harm in the ocean (assuming that that is where they will land - Murphy's Law never factors into your solutions does it!) then why is it necessary to shoot them into space at all?

Posted by: Don Herbert | August 15, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"The left won't agree to more nuclear power plants, even though the risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks."

The problem with nuke power is what to do with the waste. I don't think this problem is insurmountable, but thus far has proven to be a challenge. While the benefits of nuke power are obvious, from an air pollution standpoint, there is an extremely long tail to the waste that is produced. I don't know the details regarding how long a 'chunk' of uranium provides power, but lets say its 10 years. So we get 10 years of power, and then have to find a way to store the waste safely for a thousand. Is that *really* a good tradeoff?

Posted by: bsimon | August 15, 2007 5:21 PM | Report abuse

redistricting texas. Trying to steal california. The voter fraud on the gop side never stops. All day every election. We are no longer a democray. if we were the repubs would not be a party at all. We would have a socailist party and the d's. Give me some more parties. NOW :)

"What 83 year-old William Sidwell of Queen City, Missouri found in his mailbox last week scared him. It was a letter from the Republican National Committee, but it seemed to bear grave news: "Our records show that you registered as a member of our Party in Schuyler County, MO," the letter said. "But a recent audit of your Party affiliation turned up some irregularities."

Audit? Irregularities? Was he in trouble? Were they threatening him? Sidwell went immediately to his ask his son, Dennis, a licensed public accountant, for advice. You can see the letter, and the accompanying "Voter Registration Verification and Audit Form," right here. Particularly puzzling to the both of them, Dennis told me, is that his father is a life-long Democrat.


The letter, it turns out, is just a misleading pitch for a contribution to the RNC -- one of the "irregularities" cited in the letter is that "I cannot find a record of you taking a single action in support of the Republican Party -- not locally, not nationally!" A contribution, the letter suggests, would help set the record straight.

The letter is signed by Bill Steiner, the director of the RNC's Office of Strategic Information, a title Steiner assumed at the end of July. His responsibilities "include managing the RNC's national voter file and Voter Vault, the committee's highly touted micro-targeting operation," Roll Call reported last month. And indeed, the voter "audit" requests detailed information about the voter's voting history and current opinions on the 2008 presidential race. Read more..."

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

"Just becaus I AM A 12 yR oLD kid in my MOMs basement Doesnt meen that you shuldnt lissen to me."

Obviously not me. The fascsits have to do something to try and silence me. You know they can't counter my posts.

All they can do is pretend to be me and type bulls***. I must really but fear in the fascists heart's if they spend all day trying to discredit me with such elementary school tactics, right?

MAybe you people should listen to me more. Why would the gop'ers try to discredit me so much if I was lying?

The reason is they can't disput my posts. So they cry. They think or ways to get me. Posting as rufus is the best they got? AHHAHHAHAHA. I'm not scared of you. I laugh at you.

ANd mike. Nuculer is not the way to go, regardless of what mitt romney tells you. No matter how much fox tells you it's ok. Shooting nuculer waste into space and hoping it doesn't fall back to earth, which it will in large numbers, is not the way to go.

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

rufus - Sorry, I spoke for you and ought not have. I am an engineer and see encasing nuclear waste in a glass matrix as an easy solution to the waste problem. As for "getting rid of it"...launch the blocks into space! That is relatively cheap and easily done. If a rocket rarely malfunctioned and a glass block ended up on the bottom of the ocean, it wouldn't be a problem, because the decomposition rate of glass is many times that of the radioactive waste material embedded in it. Basicly, with nuclear power (as with religion) we have allowed nutcase and amatures to run the debate, amatures who have no knowledge nor expertise about the subject they spread disinformation about. THAT is the main problem with nuclear power.

Posted by: MikeB | August 15, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Just becaus I AM A 12 yR oLD kid in my MOMs basement Doesnt meen that you shuldnt lissen to me.

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: so loud and dumb, you admit they are not choices and that the Dems prefer to keep it that way while the Rs would open up the freedom and liberty for all. Just as I was attempting to say. thanks for bumbling into the truth.

No, SFB, I admit that the "choices" you listed bear no relationship to reality.
Whatever else you blather is nothing but a creation of your own little brain -- you're good at putting words in other peoples' mouths, but not good at much else, if anything.

But thanks for admitting you're anonymous, ignorant, gutless coward.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 15, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

I'll make a deal with you zouk and the rest of the fascsits. As you know I am a former Army infantry soldier 11B. As you would think I love this country bery much.

I am confident the 06 elections were not a apperision. So confident am I that the american people have rejected fascsism once and for all I can say this. And you can call me on it after the elections. Ready?

If The republcians (Or Hillary clinton) win the election I will flee the country. Straight enough for you. If Hillary gets the nom. you people will be in pretty good shape, won't you.

That's how confident I am in the american people. Do you want to match? If not all independant thinkers should know these people are lying propogating fascsits.

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

ProudToBeGOP - "...The left won't agree to more nuclear power plants..." WRONG! People like rufus and I ARE the left, at least a part of it, and we advocate building nuclear power plants. We just don't want them run by private companies that cut corner to make gigantic profits. (The very idea of having an Enron or WalMart or Microsoft run a nuclear power plant is enough to make anyone into a PETA-Earth First lunatic.) In France and Germany they make small plants and they are usually pretty close to major cities. As a consequence, they are watched openly and very carefully and are extremely safe and well run. The waste, using common sense, they fuse into glass blocks. The decomposition rate of the glass matrix is greater than the half life of the nuclear waste by a factor of 20!

Posted by: MikeB | August 15, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

A wise man once said "You are not your job".

A wise man once said, "You are not how much money you have in the bank"

You are.

Now stop the sabotage of this great country or you will be left in the wind.

As to me not knowing econ. again, you are a moron zouk. Think a little bigger. If your going to engage me your going to have to go up a few notches. YOur living by old rules old man. The old rules no longer apply, old man. 9/11 and the internet changes the rules. Your children and grandchildren are not as blind as you. Don't get left in the wind. Join humanity you soulless clones.

Posted by: rufs | August 15, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

In her latest demonstration of class-warfare, Clinton debuted a new television advertisement titled "Invisible" to ramp up support for her universal health care plan on Monday. It implies the low-income, uninsured have been "invisible" to President Bush.

The price tag for her presidential healthcare plan, however, remains "invisible."

Barack Obama's campaign has projected his universal healthcare plan would cost between $50 billion and $65 billion each year after deducting savings he hopes to incur along the way. John Edwards estimates his plan universal healthcare plan will cost between $90 billion and $120 billion annually. Both of them say repealing the Bush tax cuts and redirecting money for the war in Iraq would partially finance their plans.

Clinton has said she'll come forth with cost estimates and funding proposals for her plan in due time.


Amanda Carpenter

Posted by: shhh another clinton secret | August 15, 2007 4:52 PM | Report abuse

""build and use nuclear power plants (and "stuff!" the eco-nutcases). We could cut our use of fossile fuels by half or more within five years!""

YEah. I heard the robot hannity making this an issue last night. now it's the liberals fault for not making more nucular power plant. He knows how much that costs, and the risks? Nuculer engineers out there! how do we dispose of nuculer waste. What!! they is no way to do it.

Anything to blame the dem's.

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"Money is nothing but paper" - you need to take a basic econ course. Money has a specific purpose and it is most certainly much more than paper. It measures value without have an intrinsic value in itself - hence it is made of worthless paper.

If you were able, I would pay you ten dollars to sweep my walk. I would pay the kid in my neighborhood 20 dollars. Why? because he is worth twice what you are and this is my way of showing everbody your general worth. It's not the paper, which is identical, it's the printed portion that says either 10 or 20. you getting only ten means you should learn your trade better for next time and make sure you get all the cigarette butts. you can then go down to the liquor store and trade your 10 for a pint. this shows the liquor store ownner your worth - one pint not two. you will have to sweep another walk tomorrow while the neighborhood kid takes the day off. In this way we can measure relative worth without carrying around TVs, cans of food or gold bricks.

I suspect that with your wit, intellect and obvious abilities, you do not need to worry over whether you will ever have a million dollars to burn.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 15, 2007 4:51 PM | Report abuse

"build and use nuclear power plants (and "stuff!" the eco-nutcases). We could cut our use of fossile fuels by half or more within five years!"

mikeB - we are in agreement here; I suspect most of the country agrees with making this a national priority. Giuliani has it as one of his Twelve Commitments. I would like to see it fleshed out a little more, but if he has a substantive plan like Newt has put forward with big incentives, then I think it's a winner.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/12/223182.aspx

What we need is a leader who can pitch it to the country as a national security issue, as well as a global stewardship and financial issue. We have not heard enough from our elected leaders on this; why aren't the majority dems now championing this as a national priority??

The left won't agree to more nuclear power plants, even though the risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip14.htm

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 15, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Update on Iraq now has more than 500 killed in the latest bombings.

Posted by: lylepink | August 15, 2007 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Your a monkey zouk. Watch what happens. There will be a resolution to stop bribes. That is bribes. How did they hand bribes in ancient ROme?

What will the GOP do if they can't buy votes anymore? HMMMM. Fade off to political irrelevance for a generation? I think so.

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

"Don't make mistake that liberals love Iran or Islamic extremists any more than you do"

Great point mikeb. "the dems are terrorist" is a campaign slogan. "weak on terror" campaign slogan, like "the war on terror"

Anyone how wants to harm america is AN ENEMY. China, Saudi's, Iran, Iraq, Russia.

those that want to work with us should be our allies in limited senses. We don't bow to other countries and do their bidding IE SA. We are the only super power left. The "left's" problem with the WOT is not about our refusal to go after our enemies. It's that their has been no leadership for years. NONE. It's not ALL bush's fault, though his family is much to blame with issues in the middle east.

As MikeB said most "liberals" don't have any love for Iran. We don't have any love for pakistan either. Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11. Hypocrite gop'ers. Make up you minds. Is there a WOT or not? If if there is what the hel* have you people been doing for 7 years?

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The leadership of the Democratic Party has, by its public words this spring, disgraced themselves for a generation. Republicans have the right -- and the duty -- to engrave in the public mind the springtime Democratic perfidy and cowardice in the face of the enemy.


This spring and early summer: Sen. Harry Reid said the war is lost; Gov. Bill Richardson said that on his first day in the Oval Office he would order our troops to leave Iraq immediately (even if it meant throwing down their weapons on the way out); Hillary bragged that if Mr. Bush doesn't end the war, she would do so immediately upon her arriving in the Oval Office (God preserve us); and Mr. Obama took pride of place in his adamant opposition to, and call for immediate departure from, the Iraq war.


The public must not be permitted to forget these cowardly public statements by the Democrats. It is the job of the Republicans this fall and winter to remorselessly and repeatedly remind the public of what the Democrats were saying this spring. In that disgrace lies the potential for a well-deserved Democratic Party defeat in November 2008.

The Democrats, after spending the winter, spring and early summer frantically calling for getting out of Iraq as fast as their little feet can carry them, are now, as autumn approaches, demonstrating their Olympic-class back-pedaling skills.

By winter (with the complicity of the drive-by media hat tip to Rush Limbaugh) the Democrats hope to expunge the historic record of their failure of war nerve this spring

Posted by: tony | August 15, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

" 'Government run' doesn't make it more efficient; quite the opposite. "

GOP sabotage. Divide and conquer for INDIVIDUAL profit at every turn. Isolate goper's, marginalize them, and the sabotage of this great country stops

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

"Pretty obvious that the Libs want to run every facet of your life because they know better than you what's good for you, including spending YOUR money. they even try to change the vernacular to make it seem like taxes belong to the government and in their benevolence, they will give some back to you, if and only if you vote for them."

yoUR A MORNON zouk. Last time I read the OUR money did not read Land of Zouk on it. Does your dollar bills have your pcture on it?

Moron gop. Always comes down to this. Moeny is only worth what it buys.

Senerio zouk. Let's say you are broke. You have nothing in the world (neither here nor there, but here me out). Now I come alnog and help you. I buy you a bentley. I let you use my plane whenever you want. I feed you anything you want lobster, steak, shciken. You live in the biggest house in the world. Everything is there for your taking.

Now what good would money do you then? Money is not what's important, retard. It's the things money buys. We all could have housing, electricity, food and water. Very easy to do. The reason you don't want this is because you gop'ers want to yolk the streangth of the poor. You want prositutes, the cheaper the better (not just women but slave labor)

Moeny is nothing but paper. If I had a million I would burn it to show you. You fascsit. In terms of your above points. All comes back to money. Individual choice is not where your money goes or doesn't go. It's about choices on how you live your life, or are hindered from living your life because of bullsh** gop imaginary rules.

You don't have much time left. WE'RE coming for you. You have defiled this country/planet long enough. You fascist reign is at an end.

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

so loud and dumb, you admit they are not choices and that the Dems prefer to keep it that way while the Rs would open up the freedom and liberty for all. Just as I was attempting to say. thanks for bumbling into the truth.

Meanwhile on the spending front, here's a note on the totally fake earmark reform the Dems have passed but are afraid to send to bush:

"The Club for Growth has just issued a "RePORK card" grading every House member on 50 amendments to kill outrageous pork projects this year. The results are illuminating. The Pork Hall of Shame--those who voted against all 50 reform amendments--totaled 105--81 Democrats and 24 Republicans. The average GOP score was 43%, the average Democratic score only 2%. Only one Democrat voted against pork more than a fifth of the time--Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, who racked up a 98% antipork score and is unlikely to be invited to dinner with any Appropriations Committee chairmen anytime soon.

"We've been waiting for whether or not they would veto the bill before we sent it out," Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, told Politico.com. "We want a better handle on what the White House plans to do. We'll send it when we're ready."

Why the game of chicken? Earmarks are now a major industry on Capitol Hill, accounting, for example, for nearly 10% of the last transportation bill. As Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma points out, they also serve as a "gateway drug" used to buy votes for much bigger-ticket spending bills like the 2003 Medicare prescription-drug entitlement.

Pretending that the earmark process will be made transparent and accountable as a result of a phony ethics bill is vital to Congress's effort to convince voters they've sobered up on spending. Among other travesties, the new ethics bill strips out previously agreed-upon language barring members from trading earmarks for votes, and in the Senate vests none other than Majority Leader Reid with the power to determine if an item is subject to earmark-disclosure rules.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110010462

Uncle harry, can I have a million dollars for one of my contributors?

Well kid, according to me that's not an earmark. now can I count on your vote on my amendment next week? We Dems need to stick together.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 15, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - "...Iran has found itself strengthened almost by default; if they percieve American weakness they will attempt to capitalize on it..." Of course they will. Don't make mistake that liberals love Iran or Islamic extremists any more than you do. They are nuts, whack jobs, and whack jobs with money buy "things" with that money to "win" converts and kill the infidels. Recognizing that, we ought to get the heck out of the Middle East. The warring factions there will destroy Islam or cause it to undergo the same sort of refomation that Christianity underwent during the Catholic-Protestant struggles. Also, Proud, we DO have the ability to acheive energy independence from the Middle East if we undertake it as a national priority and not outsource it. We could emulate Europe and build and use nuclear power plants (and "stuff!" the eco-nutcases) and use that power to electrify our railway and other mass transit systems, as Europe has done, but go further and electrify our interstate and intrastate highway systems and develop automobiles that use that grid. We could cut our use of fossile fuels by half or more within five years! And, for fossile fuel, we could use make oil from coal and oil shale - we have the largest reserves of these in the world. There is no need for us to be dependent upon ANYONE else and it is criminal that we haven't already achieved that independence.

Posted by: MikeB | August 15, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Truth, PS: my point to JoJo was, it'd be nice to actually see a candidate who had the cojones to say what they plan to do, assuming that they'd raise taxes. Then if you want to vote for him/her, fine, go do it.

I have no respect for any candidate, Dem or Repub, who didn't have the courage to propose what they really planned to do. I think of the Dems, Edwards is the only (non-fringe) one that qualifies; he's proposed rolling back the Bush tax cuts I believe. Obama may have also, I'm not sure. I haven't heard HRC address that issue, and it's certainly not on her website.

Posted by: JD | August 15, 2007 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Calm down, truth. Too bad you have a hard time discussing things without emotional explosions. Before I answer you, let me address the end of your rant: 'my party' isn't doing any of the things you claim, as I'm not a GOPer. However, it's interesting that you claim that I'm 'not patriotic' for not agreeing with your position - isn't that the charge Dems make against the Republicans all the time, that they are tired of being called traitors if they don't go along with the administration policy? Oh well, better not sully this discussion with facts...

Let me answer your question:

"Do you think that we need to raise taxes to A. pay for the war in Iraq and B. provide services (healthcare, etc.) to AMERICANS not Iraqis???"

The financial cost of the war in Iraq is practically a rounding error, with regard to the GNP of the US (the only measure that makes any sense). I seem to remember it was something like 4%. Don't take my word for it, go read Samuelson's column from a couple months ago.

Many people feel (including me) that adding to the entitlements burden, which is already something like 40% of the budget, is the absolute wrong way to go. Nationalizing health care would do just that. Further, it's been my experience that making something 'Government run' doesn't make it more efficient; quite the opposite. And health care, which is about 1/7 of the current economy, doesn't need to be made any less efficient than it is now.

Posted by: JD | August 15, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

mikeB "we and Israel are still trying to impose our will"

Which we are forced to continue doing until we get off the foreign-oil teet. I don't much like the fact that we are so damned far behind the power curve on energy independence. It is our achilles heel, and it should have been prioritized way before now...like 30 years ago would've been good.

Regardless, Iran has found itself strengthened almost by default; if they percieve American weakness they will attempt to capitalize on it every chance they get.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 15, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

KOZ: Dumbest. post. ever.

None of your supposed "choices" are in fact choices. Just a list of stale rightwingnut strawmen.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 15, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

"There;s the differance. Choice vs forced. This is the differance between the left vs right."

Indeed, even the village idiot gets the premise right sometimes, just that the conclusion is wrong. which is coerced and which is choice? Pick one:

government retirement (1%) or individual accounts (market)
government schools or vouchers
government health care or HMOs
government energy or capitalistic
regulation or innovation
victim or individual
Lib or gop

Pretty obvious that the Libs want to run every facet of your life because they know better than you what's good for you, including spending YOUR money. they even try to change the vernacular to make it seem like taxes belong to the government and in their benevolence, they will give some back to you, if and only if you vote for them.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 15, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

If you want denial, ask pink about hillary's vote FOR the war. After, the paranoia will set in. It is only because of the VRWC, which is real. anything that makes hillary look bad is simply conspiracy, for you see, she is otherwise perfect in all respects. eventually we will all be victims of the greedy rich.

Posted by: Dimdem | August 15, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"Rather than stepping back, and attemptoing to figure out what is possible, how to resolve the religious and tribal conflict of that region,"

This isn't an engineering problem, Edison!

Wake up! We're dealing with people from multiple cultures with thousands of years of cultural development and history.

They are not widgets!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The "CHANGE" this country needs is at the TOP. I don't know of any way to explain something to folks that refuse, or pretend to, understand what I am talking about. You can't be that stupid, or can you?

Posted by: lylepink | August 15, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"So how can electing clinton help with the chance this country wants and needs, pink?"

Change. not chance change :)

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

lylepink writes
"The repubs are desparate to drive up the negative perception of Hillary. That is also the answer to bsimon, that he hasn't quite understood yet."

Lyle, I understand your argument, and I find it lacking.

What I see in your 'fear' argument is a hint of paranoia and more than a small dose of denial.

Posted by: bsimon | August 15, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

So how can electing clinton help with the chance this country wants and needs, pink?

You do agree the country wants change, right? How will electing hillary change the way washington operates? We would be trading Bush's lying fascsits for hillary's. You know that pink.

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP - To be sure, some of the IED's and other weapons originate recently in Iran, but the vast majority of them and the compoenets to make them are U.S. in origin. They were supplied by our government during the Iran-Iraq war and litter the countryside. There are whole fields covered with bombs and artilliary shells and the internet contains information on how to rig a cell phone or garage door opener as a remote detonator. THAT is the origin of 90% of the IED's in Iraq right now. Our "complaint" with Iran is their too cozy relationship with Al Sadr and other Shia religious leaders. Once we are out, and we surely will be soon, the Iranian's will control nearly half of the oil flow from the Middle East which they will surely use against us and our policies. And, Israel fears Iran's having any nuclear programs that might result in weapons that would threaten their ability to bully their way through conflicting Arabic policies surrounding her. Rather than stepping back, and attemptoing to figure out what is possible, how to resolve the religious and tribal conflict of that region, we and Israel are still trying to impose our will. It wont work any longer and it's likely to result in a global war and the complete collapse of the West. Bush is, I submit, playing right into the hands of the Wahabi Islamic extemists.

Posted by: MikeB | August 15, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Mench: That is exactly my point. The repubs are desparate to drive up the negative perception of Hillary. That is also the answer to bsimon, that he hasn't quite understood yet. The "Fear" factor is widely know by old folks like me and how it is used. The opposition will "Pretend" to want to run against her/him when the exact opposite is TRUE. A great example happened with an actor from Ca., when dem operatives did the same thing. Remember? Yes I do know the dem, her first name is Hillary.

Posted by: lylepink | August 15, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

anon., August 15, 2007 02:31 PM - "Friends". You're out of your mind. We have no friends in this mad adventure outside of Israel and the Middle East monarchies like Saudi Arabia. Iraq doesn't want us to start a fight with Iran. Afghanistan doesn't want us to start a fight with Iran. Neither does Turkey, nor Syria, nor Lebannon, nor Egypt, nor anyone in Europe. In this adventure, we would go it completely alone. And, one mistake, one misstep, and the whole thing blows up in our face. The variables are the interests of China and Russia. Russia in pretty much independent if us right now and has gotten increasingly antagonistic over these wild plans, whch they see as an attack on a neutral government right on their border. China, which the fools in Washington see as tied to us becasue of our trade relations, have been warning Washington for some time over this. China *depends* upon Iranian oil - that is its main source! Cut that off and you wreck havoc with the Chinese economy and its vision of Asian hegemony. Europe, but to a lessor extent than CHina, depends upon Iranian oil. An attack on Iran, however, unless it is surgically precise, will result in IRan's attacking and cutting off oil supplies from all over the Middle East, plunging the world into a major Depression. This is scary stuff and, you, anon right wing poster, are willing to trust the same people who planned the disaster of Iraq with this? And never mind the morality or international crime being committed here! All for the sake of reviving the dusty imagine of this failure of a President? Is the risk of a global economic collapse, a global war, and a series of political crises that will mark then end of democracy in the U.S. worth this?

Posted by: MikeB | August 15, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Such a designation makes it difficult for them to make financial transactions, as most of the world's financial institutions route their dealings through U.S. banks. There can be no denying the fact that Saudi Arabia is responsible for the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Posted by: AshamedtobeGOP | August 15, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

mikeB - I don't have a problem with the Bush administration seeking new ways of isolating Iran -including the freezing of its U.S. assets and the designated of Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.

Such a designation makes it difficult for them to make financial transactions, as most of the world's financial institutions route their dealings through U.S. banks. There can be no denying the fact that Iran is responsible for the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 15, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"If you look at what he was pushing, it runs counter to peoples' claims that he was just a base guy," said Taylor, noting Rove's advocacy for Social Security reform, education reform and a comprehensive immigration policy."

1. Social Security "reform", more accurately known as abolishment, is the Holy Grail of the right wing and is part of their quest to finally bury FDR.

2. Education "reform"; i.e., the stepping stone to a two-tiered education system -- one for the priveleged and another for everyone else.

3. Immigration "reform": Systematically removing low-cost foreign laborers from employment by small, mom & pop businesses and instituting an indentured servant system in which only the largest employers could access them.

All of these so called policy initiatives were rooted in Rove's larger right-wing agenda.

Posted by: Henly, Texas | August 15, 2007 2:51 PM | Report abuse

There;s the differance. Choice vs forced. This is the differance between the left vs right.

individual/dr choice vs Forcing principles on others

Freedom of religon vs force feeding religon in SCHOOLS.

Making women take a pill to kill their kids is not cool. If they choose to take a pill based on a number of reasons, that is her choice.

Something you gop'ers never will understand. Individual choice. you think the world runs by "Your way of the highway". If you can't get your way you'll take your ball and go home. Maybe in the past. The future is now

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Imagine attacking our enemies while employing diplomacy with our friends. How un liberal of them.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

can someone help me clean the drool off my chin?

Posted by: Hi, I'm ignorant, anonymous coward | August 15, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Can we feed that to Loud and dumb's mother and have it work retroactively?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"They are doing everything in their power to stop a confrontation, including placing diplomats, trade missions, and government representatives in Iran. The Whitehouse reaction has been to demand trade sanctions against Iran because of it's "nuclear ambitions" and has outright threatened to attack Iran unilaterally unless some sort of trade sanctions are enacted."


This white house no longer serves american interests. They have sold us out. They now serve foreign influences. Isreal, Saudi Arabia.

I call that treason. Our politicians are supposed to be OUR politicains. Not siding with outside influences OVER and AROUND our country. This is why I've been screaming treason

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 2:24 PM | Report abuse

good for you proud. glad to see you don't share the view of some of your more radical colleagues.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 15, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP, Mark In Austin - It is being widely reported that the Bush Whitehouse is about to declare the Iranian Republican Guard a "terrorist organization". This is insane. It is criminal. Where is Congress in stopping this madness? The Bush Administration appears dead set on some sort of military action against Iran. The whole world is trying to prevent it. The Presidents of Afghanistan and Iraq are meeting with the Iranian's, publicly calling them friends. The European's have investigated Whitehouse claims of Iranian weapons in Iraq, and found them baseless. They are doing everything in their power to stop a confrontation, including placing diplomats, trade missions, and government representatives in Iran. The Whitehouse reaction has been to demand trade sanctions against Iran because of it's "nuclear ambitions" and has outright threatened to attack Iran unilaterally unless some sort of trade sanctions are enacted. Those feeble sanctions that have been enacted are a direct result of Europe's appeasing the Bush Whitehouse, in a mad attempt to head off military action. It's very much like the sort of mistake Europe made with Hitler, but in this instance, Hitler is being played by George W. Bush. The result has been this fiction of international concern, a complete fabrication of "evidence" and a cardboard "coalition" preparatory to our wrecking another country in the Middle East and embroiling the U.S. in another disastrous military adventure. I'd bet Cheney is behind this and part of Rove's strategy is to somehow revive Bush as a "wartime President", using a preemtive strike and the subsequent aftermath as a vehical. The problem is, these nutcases and their supporters haven't planned this new adventure any better than they did the Iraqi one and this just might mark the beginning of Armageddon.

Posted by: MikeB | August 15, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

loudon- sorry, I must have missed that post. Yes, in fact I have a few Plan-Bs in stock right now if you're in need. If under 18, you'll need an Rx but I can call the physician for you, if you like.

It's really just glorified birth control..a stronger blast of the exact same hormones as in oral contraceptives. Moral judgements do not enter into the dispensing of any legitimate prescription or OTC drug, imho.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 15, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"hey Pharmacist Proud, you never answered my simple question: Do you dispense the morning-after pill?"

Also, do you provide Rush Limbaugh with his "stash". Drug dealing republicans. Isn't afganistan the #1 producer of heroine? Remember the war on drugs when bush's daddy (and the cia)was bringing in coke from south america.

Fricking republicans. Hypocrites. Stop sabotaging this great country so we can grow as one :)

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

hey Pharmacist Proud, you never answered my simple question: Do you dispense the morning-after pill?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 15, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

The last 15 years have shown the american people all they need to know about the republcians. From Newt shutting the government down, impeachment over a BJ, an dI haven't even mentioned BUSH. What have you people done right? And you STILL think the GOP is going to win zouk? WOW. YOu people are farther gone than I thought. Were you living in a cave during the 06 elections? Your movement HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED. Remember? Your party has a year and half of relevance. Better use that time wisely. The last 30 years have not been. Good luck though zouk. YOur really really going to need it.

The gop has been marginalized. Tim Mccveigh's will be pointed out for what they are and what their goals are. YOu people cannot hold this country hostage with fear. Fear is not a stradegy. I am willing to die for what this country was founded for. Are you zouk/GOP? The proof is in the pudding. The answer is no.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin - In re: your question yesterday about the Mehdi army etc... I humbly refer you to this pearl of wisdom from kingofzouk:

The percentage increase in Iranian activity, combined with a drop in the number of attacks, is another way of saying that al Qaeda is being destroyed for a second time, and the Iranians are scrambling to fill the void. But they are on the run, just as is al Qaeda, as you can tell by the back-and-forth shuttling of their factotum Moqtadah al Sadr, between Iran and Iraq. If their scheme was working in Iraq, he'd sit still. He's scrambling because they're in trouble.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDU5OTczMGU3NzRkZTJkNzFlMmFjNThkMDJiMDlhODE

Also, Petraues has an unvarnished approach in his dealings with Iraqi prime minister, al-Maliki. This is a very good sign of diplomatic progress, imo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/middleeast/14petraeus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 15, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama Gore 08

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I will weigh in on the current candidates. first I would like to point out that it is legacy time over at the bush ranch and who better to raise the money and establish a library - rove. now the candidates:

Hillary can't hide enough from the truth. every day there is another cover-up. she can't conceal enough of her past to make it through the gaunlet. the press will help her but the truth telling Fox news will get the word out. Nothing says motivation to Rs like another corrupt, tax raising, nanny state clinton.

Obama - I said very early on that he would produce gaffes due to his inexperience. He is not robotic and programmed like hillary, which is refreshing, but he is just too easy to make fun of for his foolish statements.

Edwards - already moving staff from other states to Iowa and NH. He will be gone after that. What a maroon!

now the GOPs:

McCain lost all his capital over finance reform, gang of 14, tax hikes, etc. Never stood a chance.

romney is just too smooth and reminds one of Kerry with his waffling. his standing in the national polls indicates that money can't buy you love in the aggregate.

Fred will never amount to much. the question of "why do you want to be president" is still out there.

Rudy represents s turning point in the R party back to Libertarian concepts while remaining strong on defense. this is a welcome respite from the evangs ruling the party. the Libs will try to bring up personal issues but that will backfire considering the hypocricy of running a clinton.

In the end, the voters will choose NOT to raise taxes, NOT to lose a war, NOT to hand over industry to the nanny, NOT to wallow in corruption, NOT to vote D. the rest of the world is coming to the realization that socialist economies are a quagmire and soft foreign policy is suicide. the press can't hand another election to the Ds, the voters just aren't that gullible. Look at the broken promises, the agenda, the accomplishments, you will see what I mean. thay can't even stage an effective investigation despite a real strong effort. Imagine investigating the firing of attornies - considering it is up to the president with no concession and clinton fired them all. this represents either poor strategy or bloodlust but certainly will not play well in peoria. Are the Libs that sodden with debts to the Kos fools? It would seem so. But extreme leftism is not a winning position.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 15, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

lylepink, I'd want the opposition party to nominate the person with the highest negative perception among the gerneral public. That already puts your campaign a step ahead. You can shape the campaign discussion around your issues, while your opponent has to try to get people to like them more.

You know who that person is for the Democrats.

Posted by: Mench | August 15, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

lylepink writes
"The far right-wing of the repub party has, as you state, a deep "Fear" of Hillary that has turned into "Hatred". This is a long time concept that goes "We Hate what we Fear most.""

That's not quite what I wrote, and, in fact, over-simplifies the dynamic I'm talking about.

It is certainly possible - and not necessarily unlikely - that Senator Clinton can win the general election. What I said was that if she's the Dem candidate, the race will likely be far closer than it would otherwise be. More to the point, on the subject of Rove's prediction that a GOP candidate can win if they can paint themselves as 'an instrument of change' I agree with him - if Clinton is the Dem nominee.

If you're the GOP candidate trying to bring a 'change of course' to Washington, who would you rather run against than someone who's already spent 8 years in the White House & the subesequent 8 years in the Senate? Senator Clinton claims vast 'experience' in Washington. If you believe this claim (and why you would - and apparently do - I fail to comprehend), you also tie her to the problems inherent to Washington.

Posted by: bsimon | August 15, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133: Thanks for the laugh, you are not even coming up to a broken clock. Know what I mean??

Posted by: lylepink | August 15, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

How do you think that reports gonna read?

"Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government."

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

""We Hate what we Fear most." "

yOU GOT ONE THING RIGHT PINK. i'LL STRAIGHTEN YOU OUT, for you. You know who they fear by who they try and silence. Fox rarly mentions obama. Rarely. They mention Hillary everyday with terms like "frontrunner". They don't emtion obama because they fear him. They do not fear hillary as they mention her everyday. Need proof on that?

Olberman. How many times have you heard olberman mentioned on fox? One? Why? Hate of fear, or both? Hillary is a republcian pink. Her in the race would be republican vs republican. And as far as the left not being able to win. We'll see about that one. Time will tell. I will say the old rules no longer apply. Your living in and old world old man. Join reality. Stop the sabotage and get with the program , respectfully of course :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | August 15, 2007 1:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: Again you are half-right, imo. The far right-wing of the repub party has, as you state, a deep "Fear" of Hillary that has turned into "Hatred". This is a long time concept that goes "We Hate what we Fear most." The election cannot be won by the extreme groups of either party, and this is where Hillary will not get much support from them in the primary, and they will go to her in the General. Obama is who the repub party wants to be the nominee, for as I have explained in detail how they have even planned to change, some have already, their registration and given money to his campaign. By all accounts Hillary is gaining support, as I said she would, and Obama is losing support, as I said he would. For the past year or so I have made several predictions and most of them, above 90%, have been accurate.

Posted by: lylepink | August 15, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

To JD:

I WILL, in fact vote for the candidate that decides to raise taxes. That is, I will vote for the candidate that repeals the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Now, I have a question for you: Do you think that we need to raise taxes to A. pay for the war in Iraq and B. provide services (healthcare, etc.) to AMERICANS not Iraqis???

This is what I don't get about you republicans. YOU'RE the party of less big government and accountability, yet none of you has anything to say when YOUR candidate creates the Dept. of Homeland Sec., Halliburton rips us off and we somehow "misplace" billions of american dollars in Iraq. YOU'RE the party of patriotism, no flag burning and the pledge of allegiance. Yet, I hear nothing as our country drops hundreds of billions on 25 million Iraqis, while 35% of the people of Cleveland live in poverty. Where is your outrage JD??? You have none, because you aren't patriotic. You have none because party comes before country.

Posted by: TruthShallSetUsFree | August 15, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, Chris --- This is the same conclusion that more Democrats are reaching. The media pundits and a few "Hillary or Bust" activists - hence, I think, the extra cleavage:) - are getting quite concerned about her ties to corporate lobbyists and generally conservative ideology. What strikes me, presently, is the lengths that the media has gone to to cover for her. At the recent Kos convention, Ms. Clinton was booed and many/most attendees report that she was asked repeatedly about her corporate ties, receipt of money from outsourcing firms, money from Indian companies, tues to Indian corporate executives, etc. Yet, not one word of this made into any reports that I read. It has come out in blogs and, finally, a weak acknowledgement of it appeared yesterday on MSNBC. Its almost as if the Post, the NYT, CNN, et al have already coronated Hillary Clinton President and don't want to look foolish before the public for admitting they made a huge mistake.

Posted by: MikeB | August 15, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

"...who proposes raising taxes on the RICH, and whenever I leave that point out I verify that I'm a mindless dittohead."

So, why do bank robbers rob banks?

The Republicans want to rob the convenience store in the corner market, but not the bank sitting next to it...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Iraq bombing death toll goes up and is expected to go higher and higher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/world/middleeast/15cnd-iraq.html?hp

But hey, we control three square blocks in Baghdad. Woo-hoo!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 15, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

"...who proposes raising taxes" on the RICH, and whenever I leave that point out I verify that I'm a mindless dittohead.

"Or will you vote Democrat, on the basis of that party historically has been the one to" be fiscally responsible, and whenever I leave that point out I verify that I'm a mindless dittohead.

Posted by: Original thought hurts my brain | August 15, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

WOW Bsimon. That is on point analysis of clinton. Something I agree with you about. I think it is for differant reasons, but all the same I think the gop wants clinton to run. I see differant reasons than you people, but that's not important.

One thing to remember. Anything on Fox has a political agenda. Most tiems is not what you would think. You have to read these fascsits between the lines. They do love to call clinton the "front-runner" at every chance. They attack her daily. Whether they fear her or want her to win is debatable. Either way Fox and the GOP wants to face her. Let's stop gving Fox and their propogating fascists what they want. they don't control the world. They only control what we let them.

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

"what can only be classified as media complicity or lousy journalism..."

important correction there...
(sorry I don't use spelcheck..)

Posted by: JEP | August 15, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

"Until 2005 Rove was viewed either positively or neutrally by Republican consultants and strategists."

Is this something of a softened-up "me culpa" Chris? A prelude to confessions of being wrong? Or do you have the Fonzarelli disease, the word "I was wrong" can not formulate in your mind.

Chris, just how wrong do you have to be before you admit it?

And how often can you be that wrong, before all you "Republican strategists and consultants" admit your perspective is skewed, and you need some corrective political eyeglasses. Or lazer surgery.

When will you and the rest of Republican Pounditry admit that it was all of you whoenabled Rove, from the beginning of this cheatin' days, you and your fellows in the 4th Estate gave him the cover he needed to continue on.

Now in hindsight, his genius is more than questionable. You and your fellow poundits gave him that "genius" mystique, not the reality we now see through all your clouds.

Any other character in history would have faced media scrutiny that might inhibit their cheatin' ways, but crooks like Delay and Rove took your silent protection to the absolute extreme, in order to promulgate thier profane political prostitutions.

And now that it has become a mess of historic proportions, you look back and casualize what can only bge classified as media complicity of lousy journalism take your pick thereis no other choice, unless you just want to pretend it isn't real.

Chris, there was a HUGE majority of people who recognized Roves pernicious, impending influence, and you knbow it from your own occasional acknowlegement of the vitriol leveled at Rove.

Although you usually cast it as "extremists on the left" it was really an All-American, mainstream disapproval that you and your fellow R-loving, weenie chewing pundits refused to acknowledge.

And in the process, you handed the 4th Estate over to the blogosphere, where it now dwells quite comfortably, and guess what.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BACK, EVER!!!

It is too late, "We, the People" in the form of the blogosphere, OWN it now, and we will never trust you guys again with the truth, you twisted it too conveniently for youre selfish purposes. Just like this article does, still.

It is "ours" now, and unless they find a way to shut down the internet, they can never stop the free flow of ideas, truth and speculation that now trumps all your dead-tree print.

Posted by: JEP | August 15, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

lylepink writes
"I would have thought you didn't buy the "We want to run against Hillary" crapollo, when the opposite is true. I have pointed out several times on this thread that the repubs do the opposite of what they say. Maybe you skipped/missed my comments."

Your conclusion is accurate.

If I were a GOP strategist, I would want my candidate to run against Sen Clinton. She is, by far, the most inspiring candidate - to the Republican base. She has been demonized for roughly 15 years, to the point that people no longer have rational thoughts about her - whether for or against, there's an innate pavlovian response.

To reiterate my point, on a neutral playing field, the GOP is screwed - support for them & their ideas is down, way down. The problem for the GOP is that they're even down among their traditional supporters. They've angered enough of their constituencies that a lot of traditional GOP supporters could very well stay home in 2008. That is, unless they're given a good reason to go to the polls. But, when you've overplayed the fear of terrorism, the fear of immigrants and the fear of the godless Democrats, what do you use?

Aha! Says the GOP strategist, I have exactly what I need, I have the most polarizing figure in modern American politics. I have Hillary Clinton as an opponent. Nothing and nobody will inspire the Republican base to show up to vote more than Hillary Clinton. You may not like it, lyle, but its true.

As a voter, I really don't care what the GOP says about her - I can reach my own conclusions. And the conclusion I've reached about Senator Clinton is that she is not qualified for the office. She has displayed neither the judgement nor the leadership capabilities that the office requires. Or that the office should require - current occupant notwithstanding - clearly not all voters see the world the way I do.

Posted by: bsimon | August 15, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

JoJo, if you actually believe what you posted, are you saying then that you will vote for the candidate who proposes raising taxes?

And do you think someone will actually run on that campaign promise?

Or will you vote Democrat, on the basis of that party historically has been the one to raise taxes?

Posted by: JD | August 15, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"Rove was indeed a genius as to political tactics, he won twice with a less than stellar candidate. He was far from a genius in creating a lasting continuation of the Reagan Revolution. He may have acually planted the seeds for the end of that.

But, Rove's job should have been getting the Boss elected. The policy responsibility should have been the Boss'.

If it turns out that he was responsible for both, then he wore one hat too many."

GReat point. Rove is a genius. But then the admin used him as a patsy. I guess the GOP then will call him a patriot. Party over country (in the gop world)and all.

TO the man who posted this:

"after being destroyed by liars, iwould think karl is now in a position to do some real damage to the libelists. get ready."

You are a fool if everybody in the world says one thing and the gop says the opposite, the world are liars? Ok. You can believe that if you want. It's your choice. Just don't expect the rest of the world to go along with YOUR people's LIES AND PROPOGANDA. "I billy jumped off the golden gate bridge would you."

Frickin republcians. Your party has a year. Rather than lie spin discreedit propogate, why not at least attempt to fix the problems you have caused to thsi great nation the last 35 years

Posted by: rufus | August 15, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

history will likely judge bush and company for its ultimate lack of a message regarding the inevitable need for self-sacrifice of every American. you can't rebuild the bridges, fight a war in iraq, continue medicare and social security, entirely without raising taxes while expecting low gas prices.

It's not going to happen and it never will. I'm sorry, but the next president needs to lead America to this reality.

Posted by: JoJo | August 15, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

bsimon: I would have thought you didn't buy the "We want to run against Hillary" crapollo, when the opposite is true. I have pointed out several times on this thread that the repubs do the opposite of what they say. Maybe you skipped/missed my comments.

Posted by: lylepink | August 15, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Rove was indeed a genius as to political tactics, he won twice with a less than stellar candidate. He was far from a genius in creating a lasting continuation of the Reagan Revolution. He may have acually planted the seeds for the end of that.

But, Rove's job should have been getting the Boss elected. The policy responsibility should have been the Boss'.

If it turns out that he was responsible for both, then he wore one hat too many.

Posted by: Mench | August 15, 2007 11:09 AM | Report abuse

He's gone but Bush remains, not much of a victory. Many credit Rove with winning both campaigns for W. but the truth is uglier. First Gore and then Kerry gave the election to the weakest candidate to ever run but the blame must be shared with every voter who pulled the lever for Bush. The last six years have been a self inflicted wound, now the question is, have we learned anything?

Posted by: Kay | August 15, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

reason posted, last night,
"Rove believes a Republican can win in 08', but he must be considered an "agent of change." Looking up and down the GOP list right now, Romney and Huckabee are fitting that bill the best right now."

He's likely right, on one condition: that Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Compared to her, they'll have the easiest time of painting the Repub nominee as the 'agent of change'. She is the dream opponent for the GOP - she already has extremely high negatives, and is possibly the last remaining person or issue that will inspire the base to show up - in droves.

Posted by: bsimon | August 15, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

lylepink, when MikeB gives you the apology he owes you, I'll sign the posts.

Actually, I only posted once this morning. The other anons are other people. They're the ones on target.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

WoW has this thread been twisted!!! I thought the initial idea was to analyze Rove and his antics over the past 6-8 years. From here it looks like Rove suffered the same fate as the Johnson crew in 1966-67. When the media (MSM) turns on your (back burner) foreign escapade,after pumping it up in RAH RAH fashion, (the Alsops),everything else becomes unglued..., and the public begins to turn on your entourage. Rove dropped like a rock when Iraq went south, then came "immigaration", Social Security privitization, Plame, the US Attorneys and Seedy Gonzalez, and all of the other fun things that would have been overlooked or backpaged, if "Mission Accomplished" had truly ended on the deck of the carrier. He would still be there and the Shrub would appear Reaganesq. Didn't happen..... Rove takes a hit, and goes out, to (great point by Dan Herbison)work the campaign of the next Repub nominee, but from WAY behind the scenes.

Posted by: L. Sterling. | August 15, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9a8_1186873756

Dick Cheney on why we shouldn't invade Iraq, in 1994. Listen to it - he predicted everything that has happened. Everything.

But that was before he started working for the oil industry, wasn't it?

So he knew going iinto this what was going to happen and still chose to do it. Of course, his stock in Halliburton is now worth in excess of $90 MILLION, so I guess it was worth it.

Posted by: The Proof | August 15, 2007 9:20 AM | Report abuse

anon: TRY using a signin name, you have been on target this AM. This past week has been a big loser for the repub party, in that most stories have portrayed the party as trying, once again, to find something positive, and yet from the Prez hopefuls, ex House Speaker, and top WH aide leaving, nothing but bad news. The dem gains in both houses appear to be getting better, as the Hastert seat will be in the toss-up column along with so many others considered safe.

Posted by: lylepink | August 15, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

The date of the last report we'll be told we need to wait for will be January 19, 2008.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

'About the long-awaited "Petraeus" report? LAT: "Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it actually will be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

Some officials say they expect Petraeus to push for maintaining the current force level for at least six additional months to build upon security improvements in Baghdad'.

It's always 6 more months. and then 6 more... and then 6 more.. and then.. and then...

Posted by: Laila | August 15, 2007 8:40 AM | Report abuse

He pointed out that Mr. Giuliani created the mayor's office of immigrant affairs when he was in City Hall and filed suit against the federal government for attempting to allow city employees to turn in illegal immigrants who came forward for city services.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Giuliani, Maria Comella, said the mayor has always been in favor of legal immigration but has also argued that the federal government has failed to secure the borders. "It's a question of tackling this issue of the border security so that ultimately legal immigration can continue to grow," she said.

Posted by: rudi love immigrants | August 15, 2007 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Rudy's getting hammered on immigration. Is this a repeat of McCain?
http://political-buzz.com/2007/08/15/immigration-worries-for-rudy/

Posted by: mpp | August 15, 2007 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Wow, some eye-opening numbers: The Dem party committees are absolutely crushing their GOP counterparts in fundraising this year, according to new figures just posted by the Federal Election Commission.

During the first six months of 2007, the FEC says, Dem committees raised $111 million and spent $67 million. That's an astounding 98% increase over a comparable period in 2003. The jump was largely fueled by the DCCC's fundraising success, the FEC claims.

Meanwhile, GOP committees raised $108 million and spent $82 million. That's a 22% decline from the comparable 2003 period. All three GOP committees -- the RNC, the NRCC, and the NRSC -- experienced a fundraising dip.

USA Today's political blog, which first flagged the numbers, has this key observation: "The trends echo what's been happening in the presidential contest. The top Democratic presidential contenders have collected much more money than the leading Republican candidates -- though the GOP contenders have spent more."

Posted by: report THIS | August 15, 2007 8:19 AM | Report abuse

It's not easy to choose Giuliani's most outrageous sexual escapade, but I think from the standpoint of evaluating his fitness for public office, his fling with Cristyne Lategano takes the cake.
Lategano was working as Giuliani's Press Secretary when their affair began, and was later elevated to Communications Director. When the affair ended in May of 1999, he installed her at the helm of the city's tourism bureau, a $150k/year plum. Rudy's ex-wife, Donna Hanover, has blamed Lategano in public statements and court papers for the demise of her marriage.

No one who moved in those circles bothers doubting it for a second; the affair was, by its conclusion, common knowledge in the city - what would once have been termed 'open and notorious adultery.'

I raise this because, this evening, I performed a Lexis-Nexis search for news references to 'Lategano' in the last year. I found a dozen references - every one of them in the New York City media. (The Voice, the Observer, the News, the Post - not even the Paper of Record.) In other words, since Rudy has emerged as a serious national candidate, his relationship with Lategano has received zero scrutiny. Even voters who've learned of his tempestuous marriages know nothing of this affair.

And that's not right. Because the Lategano affair embodies the very worst of Rudy - his penchant for mixing private relationships with public business, his duplicity, and his cronyism. Giuliani had an affair with a (much younger) subordinate, and then pensioned her off on the public dime.

At least Lewinsky was an *unpaid* intern.

I raise it because, unlike so many moral issues that intrude into campaigns, this one actually has a direct bearing upon the crucial issues. And from the press, utter silence.

Posted by: rudy's a wh*re | August 15, 2007 8:17 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD - At least 175 people were killed and 200 were injured in four suicide bombings targeting an ancient religious sect in northern Iraq, the Iraqi army reported Tuesday.

Elsewhere, an American transport helicopter crashed near an air base in Anbar, killing five U.S. servicemembers. Four more U.S. soldiers were reported killed in separate attacks -- three in an explosion near their vehicle Monday in the northwestern Ninevah province and another who died of wounds from combat in western Baghdad.

In a separate attack, a fifth suicide truck bomber struck a strategic bridge on the main highway linking Baghdad with the northern city of Mosul, killing at least 10, police said. The span was bombed three months ago and only one lane had reopened, according to the police officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

Posted by: the hell we created | August 15, 2007 8:12 AM | Report abuse

David Brooks, in March:

'What will happen -- what will matter is what is happening in the surge. And the surge will either be successful by mid-August, in which case Republicans and Democrats will probably want to stay, or it will be unsuccessful, and Republicans and Democrats will probably want to go.'


Left out was the other obvious possibility - that contrary to all evidence, Republicans will just claim everything's working perfectly.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 8:11 AM | Report abuse

'Romney has repeatedly criticized GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani saying the former mayor supported illegal immigration in New York City during his term in office. '

He's absollutely right. It's yet another of his famous flipflops. Ask any of his many former wives.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 8:09 AM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government is involved in intense discussions over naming all or part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group in a move that would effectively declare "open season" on the organization, a senior official told CNN.'

Another step in cheney's War for Oil. Can't leave the world's second largest producer alone. Got to declare war. Halluburton needs the work. Cheney wants the money. Baby needs new shoes...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 8:07 AM | Report abuse

'principled strength' -- what clever buzzwords. stealing language from winston churchill by a man who bears a closer resemblance to mussolini.

rudi is a fraud and a war profiteer, a serial wife abuser and adulterer and a criminally lousy father. that's your republican party of today.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 8:04 AM | Report abuse

Assessing karl rove? one word: bush's Goebbels and Goehring combined-- excellent propagandist, vile excuse for a human being, it's no coincidence his biological father was a nazi. look it up.

and as for 'proud' -- your rabid partisanship makes you react with predictable pavlovian tail-wagging to the most banal and meaningless speeches by a man whose life has been defined by blind ambition, bottomless lust and utter lack of human feeling-- rudy guiliani:

"The 9/11 generation has learned from the history of the twentieth century that America must not turn a blind eye to gathering storms. We must base our trust on the actions, rather than the words, of others. And we must be on guard against overpromising and underdelivering. Above all, we have learned that evil must be confronted -- not appeased -- because only principled strength can lead to a realistic peace."
-Rudy Guiliani

--'gathering storms' 'appeasement' 'evil' -- you folks get so entranced by WW2 cliches. pathetic.

Posted by: pathetic republican non-minds | August 15, 2007 7:41 AM | Report abuse

To all the Global Warming naysayers: You gotta love statistics - anyone can prove anything they like if they know how to play the numbers. Global climatology is so complex, that you can change the dates very easily depending on how you measure or eliminate certain criteria (temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature; atmospheric gases; the amount of CO2 in ice cores; etc.). Based on all available data, eliminating outlier events and explained phenomena, the 10 warmest years on record are still 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004 - in that order: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html.

An excerpt from NASA: "Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas. Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis. Although there are few weather stations in the Arctic, the available data indicate that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic." Earth's climate has always changed - that point is not disputed; it is the rate of change that is of current concern to scientists.

So, why do we persist in trying to disprove the conclusions that thousands of researchers have reached the world over? The truth is, we don't want to believe it's happening, so we stick our heads in the sand and say, it's just Al Gore getting all the tree huggers all worked up again. The reality is, according to NASA's assessment of a massive amount of data accumulated over the last 30 years of climatology research, the planet is warming. Only a fool would continue to argue against such an overwhelming body of scientific evidence... or someone with a financial interest in maintaining the status quo (can you say, "Big Oil"?). Hmmmm... who could that be?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen of Planet Earth | August 15, 2007 12:42 AM | Report abuse

It was either Gonzo or Rove. In the end, Gonzo won the fight.

Rove is leaving behind a trail of spectacular failures. The GOP is in disarray, the president is widely despised at home and abroad, the privatization of SS failed miserably, so did the President's immigration policy.

Bush was elected with 51% in 2004, hardly a number to boast about. Yet, the Rovelet started pushing Bush as if the half-wit had won by a large margin. As late as October 2006, Rove was boasting that he "had the maths". We saw the result of that in November 2006.

Rove is just another one of the neo-con failures who are surrounding President Stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 15, 2007 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Rove is leaving behind a republican party in disarray, failed policies (SS privatization, Immigration), and a widely despised President not just at home but abroad.

It is fair to say that he is leaving in disgrace, having been a total failure in the past few years.

Granted, he managed to get a half-wit trust-fund boy elected twice but he got a lot of help in both instances (the Neanderthals on the Supreme Court, Kathryn Harris in 2000, abject fear-mongering in 2004).

So the turd is leaving to spend more time with his family? Does he really have a wife and a son or are they holograms? When was the last time that Rove's wife appeared in public with her so-called husband? Why is it that there are no photographs of Rove with his wife? Why is it that she NEVER showed up for a Washington event? Has anyone ever seen his much-touted but never present, wife? Has anyone ever seen his purported son?

If Rove is leaving the WH to spend time with his family, perhaps he should actually produce said family and be convincing about it. In any event, and until anyone proves me wrong, I am the tooth fairy.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 11:47 PM | Report abuse

I apologize again to everyone but "Matt" and "Radical" for re-posting this, but they never responded, previously.

Matt in Boston - I have never posted about MA "leadership".
-----------------------------------------
Radical Patriot - Do you favor dismantling the Federal Reserve and adopting the bimetallic standard, whereby the Treasury must possess one dollar in gold or silver for every dollar in circulation?

Do you oppose a central banking system that can alter the money supply as one tool of monetary policy, or do you merely oppose the central banking system the USA has chosen? Why should the currency in circulation be collapsed to, say, $40B?

Why should not copper and platinum back the currency? Why not federal park land?

Or, why not consider the gross productivity of the United States as backing the currency?

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 14, 2007 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Rove's departure was almost expected. I heard on Kutlow yesterday a correspondent state that he and a few conservative activists had dinner with Rove a few weeks ago. There, he said, Rove believes a Republican can win in 08', but he must be considered an "agent of change." Looking up and down the GOP list right now, Romney and Huckabee are fitting that bill the best right now.

Huckabee coming in 2nd in the Iowa straw poll with so few resources is no accident. In fact, the fair tax, which he is promoting has a large base of support right now and is gaining. I'm not sure, but I'll bet that they put resources into the poll to help Huck's performance. My first thought was the Club for Growth, but it turns out they favor Guiliani and Brownback, but do not have a favorable view of Huckabee. Could the "fair tax" be that change that will bring Huckabee from behind to lead the pack? I personally doubt it, but it could happen.

Posted by: reason | August 14, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

I wanted to save the biggie for last as to what the repubs stand for and do the opposite. "Lower Taxes" By going in debt and borrowing money due to the huge deficits, this is in reality a hidden tax that is being left for the lower and middle income earners to pay. Nuff said!!

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2007 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris,
Over on MSNBC the are running a story on some of the unsavory campaign contributions Hillary Clinton has taken. And these don't even address the ones from the Indian firms. This might make for a good forum. Hillary Clinton is a corporate owned rat and it's high time she was outed.....better by Dem's now than in the middle of the general election by her opponent. Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226458/site/newsweek/

Posted by: MikeB | August 14, 2007 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Famous words: "They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them." No roots, no clusters, though.

Posted by: El Pato Bizco | August 14, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

It's surprising the White House couldn't come up with a better storyline for Rove than..."spending more time with his family."

The announcement and hastily-called press conference in front of the president's departing helicopter seemed awkward. As the joke goes about guests who have over-stayed their welcome, "here's your hat and coat, what's the rush." It felt like that.

With Rove's departure, the loudest sigh of relief won't come from Democrats who accuse him of many devious and untoward things, but from a GOP anxious to turn the page on the sullied record of this administration and its enablers.

The next chapter in the saga of Karl "Boy Genius" will be a Presidential Medal of Freedom. Count on it.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 14, 2007 10:13 PM | Report abuse

I like how the republican critics all wanted remain anonymous. That must mean they know Rove would come after them like the petty person he is

Posted by: D | August 14, 2007 10:09 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, maybe you missed it, but Labor lost some clout in the last election because of Blair's blind support of Bush; Gordon Brown's been doing quite well recently, so much so that many conservatives have now written off their chances in the next election. As for Carter-like levels of misery, maybe you haven't read the polls that say we're well past that point?

Good luck with these rants in the next cycle, Zouk, with folks like you carrying their banner, no wonder people are leaving the GOP in droves (you're not really a Democratic plant, are you?)

Posted by: Michael | August 14, 2007 8:52 PM | Report abuse

The thing that tops my list is how the repub party has convinced a majority of the folks that they cannot tell the TRUTH. Now, stop and think about what the party has been telling us they are for these past many years. Smaller Govt., Less intrusive Govt., Homeland Sec., Iraq war, Get the folks responsible for 9/11, war on terrorism. There are many more, but each and every one of these have been proven to be inaccurate, as with everything I can think of. This should be a top issue in 08, and to put it in simple terms, whatever they say is the opposite of what they stand for.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2007 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Rove,

Thank you for restoring the party to a positiion of dominance in American politics.

Over 50% of Americans now say they are part of the party, while only 32% say they are a member of the other party.

Best of all, over 75% of people under 30, (the future of our party) now choose us, rather than the other guys.

Because of you, we have accomplished so much in so little time.

You will be missed! Once again, thanks!

Cordially,

Bob-From Enlightened New England
Democrat

Posted by: Bob North Smithfield | August 14, 2007 7:49 PM | Report abuse

after being destroyed by liars, iwould think karl is now in a position to do some real damage to the libelists. get ready.

Posted by: gary | August 14, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

"If it were the clinton admin, he would be off to jail. Just like the sopranos, if you team up with a clinton the inevitable end is either jail, death or witness protection."

The tinfoil hat brigade are out in style today.

Posted by: Beam me up, Mitty! | August 14, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

or read my posts, same diff.

Posted by: I am contard, watch me drool | August 14, 2007 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Rove's a genius.... but an evil genius. He and Bush have guaranteed that I will never again vote for spend-spend-spend Republicans who misuse and abuse our military.

Posted by: Nick | August 14, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

What the Libs do on a daily basis is amusing enough. It really needs no editorial comment or other treatment.

Is obama bombing or hugging pakistan today? Is hillary for the war or against it. Is today tuesday? Can raising taxes spur growth? Can wacky enviro regs help industry? Only if you're a Lib.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Good. Advertisments posing as news is a conflict of interests and can never be trusted. News=News. Anything else is a joke. At least now it's a joke. You fascsits had me scared for a couple years there.


"From Variety

There's certainly no shortage of comedy on the Fox News Channel, from the antics on "Fox & Friends" to Geraldo Rivera to memory-free analysts like that pixie Dick Morris. Still, "24" producers Joel Surnow and Manny Coto clearly saw a void for a conservative counterpart to "The Daily Show"/"Colbert Report," and Fox was willing to oblige by ponying up for two tryout specials. The right will doubtless welcome the gesture, but for those who really yearn to mix laughs with news and/or politics, try following FNC's Anna Nicole Smith coverage or the current convoluted storyline on "24."

From The Chicago Tribune

"The Half Hour News Hour" is being billed as a right-wing response to the supposedly left-leaning "Daily Show," but the new Fox News Channel show misunderstands the central premise of Jon Stewart's Comedy Central show. "The Daily Show's" goal is to skewer stupidity in all its forms - and that includes taking shots at both the left and the right (and especially at the arrogant media). "The Half Hour News Hour," on the other hand, lines up a variety of lefty icons - Hillary, Che Guevara, Ed Begley Jr. - and fires off jokes aimed at those targets, but the humor is so predictable and so stale that it fails to produce any laughs. The humor on this fake newscast feels forced and the jokes are not nearly as nimble and timely as they should be -- is anyone of any political persuasion still supposed to find Dennis Kucinich jokes funny?

And from The Hollywood Reporter

Joel Surnow (best known for "24"), Manny Coto and Ned Rice feel their pain. The trio developed "The 1⁄2 Hour News Hour," a political satire show so desperately one-sided that it could be at home on only one channel, Fox News. A look at the first episode suggests that, just as A.M. radio is the unassailable province of the right, TV might better be left to the left.

And lastly a glimpse of the show that was supposed to "set Michael Moore's hair on fire" Lesson: CONSERVATIVE COMEDY ISN'T FUNNY!! So long suckers. We hardly knew ya!!"

Posted by: Fox "news" not far behind. The doors are closing. | August 14, 2007 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Libs lose GOP primary. Film at 11.

What a tool.

Posted by: This just in! | August 14, 2007 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Keep counting bodies with no clue as to other measures or context. It is the Libs only chance to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. you Libs just have too much invested in america's loss to accept any thing good. you stand no chance of getting elected unless we spiral down to carter levels of misery.
but how will you make 4% unemplyment look bad? you will need kruggman to pull some really fancy lies out of his ass for this one. Maybe you could try "working is really a bad thing". but I don't think your other try at "losing a war is a good thing" is really catching on - except in Harry's office.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Now THAT's funny!

Posted by: LOL 15 episode run | August 14, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

"BREAKING! Fox's Half Hour News Hour Shelved!!

Fox's Half Hour News Hour has officially called it quits according to Mediabistro

DJShay's diary :: ::
Here's the letter from Bill Shine Fox's SVP to senior producers of the show:

August 14, 2007

TO: Senior Producers

FR: Bill Shine

RE: Half Hour News Hour/Weekend Programming

I’d like to share some news with you about weekend programming.

Joel Surnow and I have mutually decided that we will not continue the Half Hour News Hour beyond its current 15 episode run. The last show will be presented on September 16th.

While HHNH performed admirably in the ratings and Kurt Long and Jennifer Robertson did a wonderful job, we are considering ways to retool the show for future scheduling needs. There is still a chance you will see the program at some point in the future.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Joel and his team. He is a visionary in this business and he created a contrarian program that fulfilled an untapped niche in the comedy genre.

Wow. If they did so well in the ratings, then why would they cancel the show. Could it have something to do with being the lowest rated show ever to be reviewed on Metacritic?"

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Now that's funny. They got me once. They made me laugh once. Not a very good idea. Have Canadians on comedy show attacking democrats all day. HAHAHAHAHA. I said Republcians trying to be FUNNY attacking dems. AHHAHAHAHA. Now that's funny

Posted by: What took so long | August 14, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

ignore the message -attack the messenger. If that fails, lie. under no circumstances engage the facts.

If we Libs continue to lose every election in the world, we are going to have to find a new excuse. the "selected" thing worked for a while, until that traitorous NYT published its findings that Bush won anyway you look at it. now all we have is Terry McAwful to chant that one. what is a poor deranged Kossack to do?

Posted by: the Lib way | August 14, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Just in, 175 killed in Iraq.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

In reality -- for what little it matters nowadays, either here or in the Middle East -- we are winning the battle of Iraq. The percentage increase in Iranian activity, combined with a drop in the number of attacks, is another way of saying that al Qaeda is being destroyed for a second time, and the Iranians are scrambling to fill the void. But they are on the run, just as is al Qaeda, as you can tell by the back-and-forth shuttling of their factotum Moqtadah al Sadr, between Iran and Iraq. If their scheme was working in Iraq, he'd sit still. He's scrambling because they're in trouble.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDU5OTczMGU3NzRkZTJkNzFlMmFjNThkMDJiMDlhODE=

Posted by: keep your heads down Libs, you're losing | August 14, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

there are no liberals in Likud, moron, it's a right-wing party.

what a tool.

Posted by: KOZ you idiot | August 14, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Bob Shrum[spelling?] is one of these folks that to my knowledge has not had a winner, and yet he has a book and is on TV quite a bit, where Karl has stayed in the background for most of his career. These advisors on the repub side have used the one word "Liberal" as something bad or evil with great success. I think most of my disagreement is the ability of Mr. Rove to persue a policy he believes in and get the desired results, which he has not done to any degree very well.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

As I looked at the mournful picture of Bush and Rove, I could only think -- "Two old jerks"

Posted by: David LeVine | August 14, 2007 6:13 PM | Report abuse

If it were the clinton admin, he would be off to jail. Just like the sopranos, if you team up with a clinton the inevitable end is either jail, death or witness protection.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

I thought is was the clintons who were the face-sits.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Another Bush crony bites the dust. In other earth-shattering news, I ran out of milk.

Posted by: Johnny | August 14, 2007 6:08 PM | Report abuse

"Again, don't think these people are clueless morons"

It is you, poor dear rufas, who we believe to be of that nomenclature.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

i MUST WRITE ONE MORE THING BEFORE i GO, TO MY "tHE fIX" readers.

These gop'ers are not as stupid as they let on. They are not as ignorant as they seem. It's like the movie rosemary's baby. But instead of the devil they pray to it's money and party. Slaves/borg.

Don't waste your time on save one of them. Speak to everyone else. These fascsits know the score, they are just lying propogating and discrediting. Why? Think about it. Why?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. What they feel is the los of "their" money to taxes. Not knowing that money is nothing. It's the things money buys that matters. Money is nothing. If I was rich I'd burn a million just to prove to you people it's paper.

Again, don't think these people are clueless morons. The gop are not as dense as they seem. They are fascsits. FASCSITS

PEace in the middle east. Talk to you all tomorrow

Posted by: RUFUS | August 14, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

JERUSALEM - Benjamin Netanyahu swept the race to lead Israel's hardline Likud Party, according to interim results reported Tuesday, boosting his ambitions to reclaim the country's premiership.

first went Germany, then France, then Britain. why are liberals all around the world losing election after election?

Yeah, you're right - dumb question.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2007 6:03 PM | Report abuse

join reality for a change.

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 05:44 PM

If one thing is clear, it is that Rufas has very little grasp of reality.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

What a waste of time. Right Dennis. Who offered the last blanket amnesty? Where does bush stand on Illegal immagration? Who stands to profit from SLAVE labor? WOrking democrats or Fascsit sit on you as* republicans?

What a waste of time. I'm done for today. These republcian fascsits are hopeless. Hopeless.

I had hoped after the 06 elections you people would stop this "Dem's are terrorists" charade. Good luck with that. It worked well for the gop in 06.

Good luck all. Don't believe these lying propogating gop fascsits. Research on your own.

REad my boy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Democratic Presidential Candidates have generated some controversy with their decision to debate pet issues in front of the outspoken gay rights activists of the Human Rights Campaign and the fringey, far-left bloggers who gathered in a convention known as the Yearly Kos.

The real scandal, however, involves not the debates the Democrats agreed to stage but the prospective appearances they turned down. Remember, these same candidates considered Fox News (with its cable-topping viewing audience) too "radical" and "partisan" to televise their debate, and also refused to address the Democratic Leadership Council--the voice of "third way" moderate Democrats once headed by Joe Lieberman and, amazingly enough, Bill Clinton. The DLC now boasts the articulate and charismatic leadership of former Congressman (and recently defeated Senatorial candidate) Harold Ford of Tennessee, who warns that if his party disregards Bill Clinton's efforts to move to the center (at least in public perceptions) it will lose at every level.

Any political organization that considers the microscopic focus on gay issues of the Human Rights Campaign (exemplified by singer, and questioner, Melissa Etheridge) more worthy of attention than the Democratic Leadership Council (or more deserving than Fox News, for that matter) can't qualify as centrist or mainstream, and signals its intention to wage the most unapologetically far-left campaign since George McGovern's deservedly doomed effort in 1972.

Posted by: medved | August 14, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Barack The Bumbler
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:39 PM
First he's for meeting with Kim Jong-il, Ahmadinejad, Castro and Chavez without preconditions. Then he's for invading Pakistan. And now Senator Obama is blasting the U.S. military for not fighting on the ground in Afghanistan and for the indiscriminate bombing of civilians:


Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."


(HT: Instapundit.) Geraghty the Indispensable remarks:


Nope, no ground troops currently fighting, just a bunch of "air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

That's it. Too many foreign policy gaffes in too short a time. Goodnight, Senator Obama. Thanks for playing.

Can Senator Clinton afford to have such a loose cannon on her ticket?

Posted by: amatuer hour | August 14, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

One of the two major political parties of the United States has linked all its electoral hopes on domestic pathologies, economic downturns and foreign failure.

It is actually difficult to name any positive development for America that would benefit the Democratic Party's chances in a national election.

If African Americans come to believe that America is a land of opportunity in which racism has been largely conquered, it would be catastrophic for the Democrats. The day that most black Americans see America in positive terms will be the day Democrats lose any hope of winning a national election. Whatever one believes about the extent of racism in America, one cannot deny that the Democrats need black Americans to feel victimized by racism. Contented black Americans spell disaster for the Democratic Party.

If women marry, it is bad for the Democratic Party. Single women are an essential component of any Democratic victory.

If immigrants assimilate, it is not good for Democrats. The Democratic Party has invested in Latino separatism. The more that Hispanic immigrants come to feel fully American, the less likely they are to vote Democrat.

The better Americans feel they are doing, the worse it is for Democrats. By almost every economic measure (the current housing crisis excepted), Americans are doing well. The unemployment rate has been at historically low levels and inflation has been held in check, something that rarely accompanies low unemployment rates. Nevertheless, Democrats regularly appeal to class resentment, knowing that sowing seeds of economic resentment increases their chances of being elected.

The most obvious area in which this rule currently applies is the war in Iraq. The Democrats have put themselves in the position of needing failure in Iraq in order to win the next election. And again, perceptions matter more than reality. Even if America is doing better in the war, what matters most for the Democrats are Americans' perceptions of the war. The worse the stories from Iraq, the better for Democrats.

The list is almost endless. Thus, when pro-American foreign leaders -- such as Nicolas Sarkozy in France -- are elected, even that is not good for the Democrats. The more the Democrats can show that America is hated, the more the Democrats can argue that we need them in order to be loved abroad.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=if_its_bad_for_america,_its_good_for_democrats&ns=DennisPrager&dt=08/14/2007&page=2

Posted by: dennis | August 14, 2007 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Dear Rufus,

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Posted by: che | August 14, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Who, in their right mind

Its more about who in their wrong (left) mind? there are many useful idiots out there. Just look at this blogsite.

the good news is, if the truth ever really gets out, she has no chance. but don't get a clinton too close to the truth, they melt.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Everything politically Rove did now appears to be questionable and somewhat illegal. He did not come clean. We will all see what will happen when the Democrats gets hold of him.

Posted by: truth1 | August 14, 2007 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Proud is a joke. Your an old man, right? You remember how prosprous and great tiems were under clinton. YOu remember the hope and goals of the internet.

The last 6 years have done much to kill that hope. We're getting it back now. Slowly but surely. The NEXT election will strip you of the power you people HAD. I can't wait. I'm going to be laughing my head off, as I was during the 06 elections.

YOu people are living in a dream-land. What a scary place it must be. The real world calls gop. Join us. Stop the treason and immaturity and join reality for a change.

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The only discernible message from this so-called debate was that for all the Republicans' political difficulties, Democrats are still divided and their various factions are all afraid to be honest about their core beliefs, except for their unifying disdain for President Bush and Republicans. Perhaps they can all feast for a while on Karl Rove's resignation.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=overhyped_meet_the_press_debate&ns=DavidLimbaugh&dt=08/14/2007&page=2

Posted by: david | August 14, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

proud, you are too funny.

Posted by: LOL no match for any of the Rs? | August 14, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

"Let the fur fly and may the better man win."

Yes indeed. Hills a better man than the other libs but certainly no match for any of the Rs.

Who, in their right mind, would vote for an Hillary's "astounding, staggering tax increase", government redistributionist message of "shared prosperity" and her growth-paralyzing economic plan?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 14, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Worth pondering

Reacting yesterday to word that certain European governments and officials are suddenly trying to abandon their costly "global warming" policies, Royal Astronomical Society fellow Benny Peiser, of the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University in Great Britain, recalls the teachings of Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

al gore thrown under the train again. he can be the next daingerfield. Except a lot less funny.

Posted by: mccaslin | August 14, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

We're talking about rove today, right?

"Mr Rove was as powerful a government figure as he was a campaign figure. The past six and a half years of Mr Rove's career were spent as a very, very senior and extraordinarily influential Bush administration official.

He has been assistant to the president, senior advisor and deputy chief of staff. Mr Rove was the architect of social security reform, immigration, the hiring and firing of justice department officials and the placement of literally thousands of ideologically driven buffoons throughout the US government. As deputy chief of staff he was also responsible for handling the White House post-Katrina reconstruction efforts. On these actions, history has already rendered its judgment on Mr Rove. And, as we say in Louisiana, "it ain't pretty".

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

WOW

"The March poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 50 per cent of Americans identify as Democrats while only 35 per cent say they are Republican. The June NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed 52 per cent of Americans would prefer a Democratic president while only 31 per cent would support a Republican, the largest gap in the 20-year history of the survey."

A dose of reality for the dittoheads.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fbe0b986-4a8d-11dc-95b5-0000779fd2ac.html

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

"If only things were so neat and simple. The evidence is now pretty conclusive that Mr Rove may have lost more than just an election in 2006. He has lost an entire generation for the Republican party.

A late July poll for Democracy Corps, a non-profit polling company, shows that a generic Democratic presidential candidate now wins voters under 30 years old by 32 percentage points. The Republican lead among younger white non-college-educated men, who supported President George W. Bush by a margin of 19 percentage points three years ago, has shrunk to 2 percentage points. Ideological divisions between the Republican party and young voters are growing. Young voters generally favour larger government providing more services, 68 per cent to 28 per cent. On every issue, from the budget to national security, young voters responded overwhelmingly that Democrats would do a better job in government"

Old Man/GOP. Your time is up. you have a year and a half. The gop will be irrelevant for a generation. Look in the mirror for the culprit.

Posted by: from your monkey drudge's site | August 14, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The last time they were going to run for the same office he "got cancer." Yeah right. Wussyboy.

She'll break him like she broke that other tough guy, Rick Lazio.

Posted by: Rudy is scared s**tless of Hillary | August 14, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Oh I am such a tool.

Posted by: lying Libs and the liars who love them | August 14, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Proud - I saw Rudy on Kudlow yesterday. He was superb. he is so contrary to the scripted, robotic non-thinking Hillary that the minute they get into an actual open-ended debate (count on her refusing this sort of venue for some lame-o reason)he will tear her a new one.

the stark contrast between market and liberty and positive defensive measures as compared to nanny and regulatory and poll driven will be a classic election. Let the fur fly and may the better man win.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 14, 2007 5:28 PM | Report abuse

JD, anon, & JimDinFL: Lee Atwater was by far better than Karl, imo. A lot of folks give him much more credit that I personally do not think he had much to do with, only by continueing what Lee had been doing. So many of these "advisors" are really nothing more than high paid hit persons, that use opposition research to bring down an opponent.

Posted by: lylepink | August 14, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

It is about what a bunch of lying hypocrites all the Libs are.

I voted for it before against it

It depends on the meaning of is

What missing documents, they were on the table the whole time

Walk to work, don't flush

We will eliminate earmarks

and so on and on and on.......

Posted by: lying Libs and the liars who love them | August 14, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

"HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee;
it is the residence of "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas;
it is the residence of President George W. Bush.

You can check this out on hoax-buster Snopes.com under
"The Story of Two Houses",

I guess global warming is a myth then. I guess we all can relax then. No problems here, George bush has a eco-freindly house. He must really be a saint HAHAHAHAH

Posted by: Attack the messanger not the issue. Gop divide and conquer, spin, discredit | August 14, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.com
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Bush political aide Karl Rove resigns

By Jerry White
14 August 2007

Karl Rove, President Bush's closest political advisor and chief Republican electoral strategist, announced Monday that he will leave his posts as White House deputy chief of staff and senior advisor at the end of August. Rove first made known the decision in an interview published in Monday's Wall Street Journal, in which he said he was retiring from politics to spend time with his family in Texas.

According to the interview with Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot, Rove had been considering leaving the White House for a year, but delayed the move after the Democrats won control of Congress and decided to stay on further to help shepherd the administration's immigration bill through Congress--an effort that failed due mainly to opposition from congressional Republicans.

Rove personifies the ruthlessness of the US ruling elite in pursuing its interests against the broad masses of people both internationally and within the US. Utterly contemptuous of democratic processes, avid in the use of conspiratorial and legally dubious means, he exemplifies the Bush administration as a whole and, increasingly, the outlook of the dominant factions of the corporate-financial establishment.

Rove joined Bush on the South Lawn of the White House Monday morning for the official announcement. Bush referred to the long years of political collaboration between Rove and the Bush family, which began when Rove, then the head of the College Republicans, first established connections to the elder Bush in 1973.

Rove called the president a "man of far-sighted courage" and reiterated the reactionary themes he had helped make the mainstay of the Bush presidency. He praised Bush for putting "America on a war footing [to] protect us against a brutal enemy in a dangerous conflict that will shape this new century."

Hailing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, he said, "I've seen a leader respond to an economy weakened by recession, corporate scandal and terrorist attacks by taking decisive action to strengthen the economy and create jobs." Finally, referring to the unprecedented consolidation of executive power, domestic spying and the trampling of Constitutional norms, Rove praised Bush as a "reformer" who had "challenged the Congress and the country to make bold changes to important institutions in great need of repair."

The resignation of Rove is bound up with the crisis of the Bush administration and the Republican Party as a whole. Once hailed as the brilliant architect of the 2000, 2002 and 2004 electoral victories, Rove is now blamed by many leading Republicans for the defeat in the 2006 midterm election and the prospect of an electoral rout in 2008.

Rove played a major role in linking up the Republicans' traditional base of support in corporate America and conservative layers in the middle class and working class with the Christian fundamentalist right, and using demagogic appeals to anti-abortion and anti-gay sentiment to win electoral majorities. This was combined with disinformation and lies to justify the war in Iraq and the deliberate sowing of fear of terrorist attacks to push through police state measures within the US.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/aug2007/rove-a14.shtml

Posted by: che | August 14, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Most Americans are looking forward to the owner of House #2 spending the rest of his waking days there, cutting brush.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 14, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Mark F. Rove lowered the discourse as he calls someone filthy and vile. We can all strive to have that kind of discourse.

Posted by: George | August 14, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Rove lowered the political discourse to the level of a professional wrestling match. What a filthy, vile man.

Posted by: Mark F. | August 14, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

This story of two houses is interesting because it reveals
something that is the opposite of what we would expect.

House #1

A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas.
It has a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all
heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy
than the average American household does in a year. The average bill
for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone,
this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an
American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern
"snow belt" area. It's in the South.
******************************************************************************

House #2

Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university.
This house incorporates every "green" feature current home
construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms)
and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central
closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67
degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer.
The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it
consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/
cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into
a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks
and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the
cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the
house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the
property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee;
it is the residence of "environmentalist" Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas;
it is the residence of President George W. Bush.

You can check this out on hoax-buster Snopes.com under
"The Story of Two Houses",

Posted by: do as I say, ignore what i do | August 14, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

We'll see Dan. I doubt it. The 06 elections said differantly.

Goo dluck with that. How's the weather in crazyville?

Posted by: rufus | August 14, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

That right-leaning center in 2004 had been created in the first place by Rovian lies and dirty tricks. Large percentages of Americans were still deluded into thinking Iraq was an al Qaeda hotbed that had pulled off 9/11, and that we were fighting "the terrorists" in the streets of Baghdad. The Iraq action is not really going any worse now than it was then; the center has moved left because more Americans now know the truth: that the war has been fought mainly to offer partisan cover to a potent campaign lie.

Posted by: NomoStew | August 14, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Jim Webb,

Are you serious? Bush never took an unpopular stand? The ones you sited were immensely unpopular, which is why his initiatives failed so miserably. On top of that, seventy percent of the people want the Iraq War to end, and he won't end it. The people wanted less troops in Iraq, he sent more. The majority of the people want stem cell research funded, he vetoes stem cell research bills. I could go on...

Posted by: Alan | August 14, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

You whiner Dems won't be free of Rove..... that is unless you can defeat the Republican candidate in 2008, who will probably be the guy Rove goes to work for in the next few months.

Bush will never stand for election again. Rove is good at engineering elections, not necessarily policy or Congressional relations. Rove is more valuable outside the WH, to a Republican candidate, than inside the WH, to a Republican President who can at best obstruct the mad impulses of a Democrat Congress and their leftist base.

His decision makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Dan Herbison | August 14, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Rove is probably thinking now is the right time to cash in his connections and become a lobbyist. With over a year to go with the Bush administration in office, his services will be quite valuable on the open market to many companies.

Posted by: Ralph | August 14, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

It appears from this story that the goals pushed by Rove were things that would grow the base. But you have to wonder why the base shrank, especially after 9/11, a unifying moment. I'm inclined to conclude that the failure is due to Bush's remarkable inability (in someone elected President) to lead. There's no issue in Bush's entire Presidency where he took an unpopular stand and persuaded people to follow him (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, immigration) -- all his "victories" have been situations where he did what people were already ready to do or could be scared into supporting (e.g., No Child Left Behind, Afghanistan, Iraq). So maybe we're being unfair to Rove; or maybe that's just today's spin.
In any case, as the story states, Rove does bear a lot of responsibility for getting someone elected President who was stunningly ill-prepared for the office. History should not judge him kindly for that.

Posted by: Jon Webb | August 14, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

I am no fan of Karl Rove - every one of his campaigns have seen some really vicious tactics used against opponents. The most despicable, to my mind, is the telephone "poll" in South Carolina asking voters if they knew about McCain's "illegitimate black daughter".

BUT - to think he invented divisive politics and introduced the tactic of questioning an opponent's patriotism betrays a woeful lack of knowledge of our political history.

Richard Nixon was just one of a group of Republican politicians who questioned the patriotism of their opponents in the early Cold War days. Nixon referred to one opponent as the "pink lady" - 'pinko' being a common slur against liberals to imply that they were just pale versions of communists. McCarthy was only the crudest and most fact challenged of the Red baiters - he wasn't the only one.

Vietnam was even more divisive than Iraq and the patriotism of war protestors was routinely challenged. (Of course, the radical fringe of the anti-war movement provided lots of support for that charge - I heard many chants of 'Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong are gonna win" at demonstrations. Supporters of the war sported bumper stickers saying "My Country, Love it or Leave It" - the implication being if you did not support the war you did not love your country.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 14, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I will grant that he is probably very knowledgeable of polling and electoral issues, but his tactics were deplorable, and void of morality or ethics. The end justified the means. McCain's black baby, Swift Boating, Valerie Plame, Max Kelland, the spin, and outright lies surrounding every word from the administration ... Everything to Rove him was about shaping reality to conform to his desired outcome, while denying the very real world and human component existing outside of the mind of Karl Rove.

Posted by: David | August 14, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Rove is leaving because of the liability associated with the us attorney's firing and the most serious of all investigations the voter caging saga of the RNC out of his office. The heat is just too much, especially when the public now knows he leaked the CIA operative name to Novack but was not prosecuted. Rove was fired from the first Busch administration because he leaked privilleged information to the press. No one seems to remember that in the media. When the truth comes out about the political operatives in the justice department as well as the voter supression I believe he will do prison time along with MS. Taylor, Mr. Jennings and Mr. Griffin. Look for a convicted felon in prison in Conn. to play a major role in the convictions. The person is serving a prison sentence for voter fruad which lead to the white house but was not followed up by the prosecutor. Numerous calls from this felon went to Rove office during the attempt to cage voters in the 2004 election. Numerous emails by Timothy Griffin was sent to the wrong email address along with incriminating evidence on Rove, which are now in the hands of congress. In summary, raw politics as practiced by Rove at the expense of good public policy had done harm to the body politic of America. Busch with his low IQ allowed Rove and Chaney too much power and they all but sealed his fate as the worst administration in recent memory, nothwithstanding Nixon.

Posted by: sylhines | August 14, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Rove is leaving because of the liability associated with the us attorney's firing and the most serious of all investigations the voter caging saga of the RNC out of his office. The heat is just too much, especially when the public now knows he leaked the CIA operative name to Novack but was not prosecuted. Rove was fired from the first Busch administration because he leaked privilleged information to the press. No one seems to remember that in the media. When the truth comes out about the political operatives in the justice department as well as the voter supression I believe he will do prison time along with MS. Taylor, Mr. Jennings and Mr. Griffin. Look for a convicted felon in prison in Conn. to play a major role in the convictions. The person is serving a prison sentence for voter fruad which lead to the white house but was not followed up by the prosecutor. Numerous calls from this felon went to Rove office during the attempt to cage voters in the 2004 election. Numerous emails by Timothy Griffin was sent to the wrong email address along with incriminating evidence on Rove, which are now in the hands of congress. In summary, raw politics as practiced by Rove at the expense of good public policy had done harm to the body politic of America. Busch with his low IQ allowed Rove and Chaney too much power and they all but sealed his fate as the worst administration in recent memory, nothwithstanding Nixon.

Posted by: sylhines | August 14, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Rove is leaving because of the liability associated with the us attorney's firing and the most serious of all investigations the voter caging saga of the RNC out of his office. The heat is just too much, especially when the public now knows he leaked the CIA operative name to Novack but was not prosecuted. Rove was fired from the first Busch administration because he leaked privilleged information to the press. No one seems to remember that in the media. When the truth comes out about the political operatives in the justice department as well as the voter supression I believe he will do prison time along with MS. Taylor, Mr. Jennings and Mr. Griffin. Look for a convicted felon in prison in Conn. to play a major role in the convictions. The person is serving a prison sentence for voter fruad which lead to the white house but was not followed up by the prosecutor. Numerous calls from this felon went to Rove office during the attempt to cage voters in the 2004 election. Numerous emails by Timothy Griffin was sent to the wrong email address along with incriminating evidence on Rove, which are now in the hands of congress. In summary, raw politics as practiced by Rove at the expense of good public policy had done harm to the body politic of America. Busch with his low IQ allowed Rove and Chaney too much power and they all but sealed his fate as the worst administration in recent memory, nothwithstanding Nixon.

Posted by: sylhines | August 14, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

in re election 2004: "[Rove's] assumption--a correct one, in my view--was that the conservative Republican base was closer to the political center in America than was the Democrats' liberal base."


He offered the president advice, not magic.
- Fred Barnes

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 14, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/08/nasa-weather-er.html

"As for weather in the US, NASA had to update its list of the hottest years on record. Now on top is 1934, with the previous winner, 1998, in second place. Five, rather than four, of the 10 hottest years in recorded US history now take place during the 1930's.

But as NASA climate modeler Gavin Schmidt pointed out, these rearrangements sounded much more impressive than they were. The years from 2002-2006 are still warmer than 1930-1934."

Republican attempts at distorting science get corrected again.

Posted by: Blarg | August 14, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

JD "raw discourse and partisanship" was Atwater/Rove's M.O. since their days in college in the '70's. The 2000 election was just the most visible example.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

zouk! alive and well, I see. How about that piece in Foriegn Affairs by Rudy, eh?

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | August 14, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Rove was brilliant at marketing and campaigning, but he was a lousy political strategist. A true political strategist should take policy decisions and frame successful campaings around them, he inverted the process and destroyed policy in the process. This may make for some short term gains, but was doomed to fail in the long run, especially when the politics relied on a 50%+1 strategy, leaving no room for error, which must be planned for in some form at all levels of planning. All political campaigns will try to emulate his ground tactics, from micro-polling to issue framing, but would be well-advised to aviod the larger apparatus Rover built, that has been the GOP's undoing.

Posted by: Michael | August 14, 2007 4:12 PM | Report abuse

NASA has revised climate data to show 1934 as the hottest U.S. year on record, ousting 1998 and challenging the argument that national temperatures are reaching new highs amid global warming. According to the figures released last week, four of America's 10 warmest years are now in the 1930s, during the Dust Bowl era. Just three years from the past decade remain among the top 10, with 2001 having dropped off entirely.

Poor Al - dropping into irrelevancy again.

Posted by: Lib math gets corrected | August 14, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

To JD: "And despite the crybaby Robinson's hit piece in today's WaPo op ed, I don't credit/blame Rove for the raw discourse and partisanship today"

What are you talking about??? When in our history has someone's patriotism been in question because they disagreed with war??? When has it been said that we will have a mushroom cloud in Chicago, unless you support the administration??? These are Karl Rove's tactics. Now, show me the multitude of examples of Clinton, the 1st Bush, Reagan or Carter using this type of rhetoric when discussing his rivals. YOu can't because Karl Rove destroyed the basic American belief that you may disagree, because it is your right in our great society. Karl Rove is a piece of cr@p for that. You can't see it because you don't want too.

Posted by: TruthShallSetUsFree | August 14, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

No genius, just an accomplished technician with a minimal moral compass, like so many other political consultants he worked the art of tearing down the opposition which has led to the spiteful political situation we have now.

Posted by: Chet | August 14, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

As for his "legacy", Rove was nothing more than a James Carville clone. They practice the same sort of destructive politics and are equally danerous. Becasue they were so successful, you would expect Rove to be replaced by a whole litter of equally savage little monsters...and we still have Carville around. But, I don't think Rove's "home-going" is real. Washington has simply become too hot for him and he too much of a liability for Bush to have around in the limelight. Rove's influence will still be felt and his skewed view of the world still influence the Bush Whitehouse until that nightmare is consigned to the garbage heap of American history.

Posted by: MikeB | August 14, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Rove was smart, George, but I'm not so sure I'd go as far as 'genius'. He was clearly able to get Bush elected 2x, and did a good job engineering the 2002 GOP takeover. However, he was so off base with his SS privatization, NCLB, and the straw breaking the camel's back, immigration reform efforts. He seemed about as good as Dick Morris ('triangulation') or Snufflupagus ('economy, stupid').

Why is he leaving? How about he doesn't make jack working in the WH, and will now make millions giving speeches and doing consulting or lobbying.

And despite the crybaby Robinson's hit piece in today's WaPo op ed, I don't credit/blame Rove for the raw discourse and partisanship today - that was inevitable after Bush won by a hair in Fla, plus the Supreme Court overturning the Fla Supreme Court overturning the (Dem) trial judge, leading to 'selected not elected', and then he goes and gets all controversial on us with the Iraq attack.

Posted by: JD | August 14, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Is this the end of the Atwater Era?

Atwater died.

Abramoff is in prison.

Rove is leaving.

The Frat Boys whose success was based on pitting people against each other for crass reasons can no longer pull on the levers of power in the government.

Too bad they had such a heck of a run at everybody else's expense.

Do we now have to be wary of their disciples being ferreted into "career" positions of power before this Administration ends?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 14, 2007 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"So, if Rove is leaving 'to spend time with his family' what's the real reason he's leaving?"

Well, Rove has 2 option: accept his salary for basically sitting in the White House with a do nothing congress not interested in passing an agenda put forth by the White House, or going home, writing a book, maybe from an inside look at the Bush administration and making a large fortune! Which would you choose? I'd go for the money and alieviate the stress! Another smart move, Karl. This book could also stress certain policies, advancing still his agenda after retirement.

Posted by: reason | August 14, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Love him or hate him, Rove was a genius. He created a whole new way to politic. His ways are now being emulated by both parties.

Posted by: George | August 14, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

bsimon: "So, if Rove is leaving 'to spend time with his family' what's the real reason he's leaving?"

One of the stories about this made a good point: Rove has nothing to do at the WH now. Bush isn't running for office -- no comment needed -- and his "policy initiatives" won't be going anywhere in Congress. So no need for Rove's talents.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 14, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Who's writing the story behind the story? Thus far, media reports seem to be focusing on what Rove will do next and/or doing the initial retrospective of his career. But nobody, that I've seen anyway, has probed the story of his departure. When Administration figures depart 'to spend time with their families' its normally treated as some kind of made up excuse to cover the real reason. So, if Rove is leaving 'to spend time with his family' what's the real reason he's leaving?

Posted by: bsimon | August 14, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

wwwhohooooo.

"ANother one bites the dust. Another bites the dust" :)

About time. I hope eh doesn't think this will get him out of legal hot water. I think he needs a good thrity years to sit in jail and think aobut what he has done, to this great country.

Posted by: RUFUS | August 14, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company