Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Karl Rove -- Back From the Missing

White House political Svengali Karl Rove made a rare public appearance Friday in Washington, D.C., delivering a brief-but-pointed address at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting.


Presidential adviser Karl Rove gestures to hush the crowd as he prepares to speak Friday to the Republican National Committee winter meeting in Washington. (Reuters)

Rove used the speech to highlight the differences between the two parties' governing philosophies on national security matters, the economy and the judicial branch.  And he praised President George W. Bush as "one of history's consequential presidents."

"Republicans have a post-Sept. 11 worldview and many Democrats have a pre-Sept. 11 worldview," Rove said. "That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."  That line drew Rove his largest round of applause during the speech from the crowd of 100 or so.

Rove has largely been missing from the public eye over the past few months, as special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of a cover CIA operative's name continues. Rove is a central figure in the probe but his legal team insists he has committed no crime. Nonetheless, the controversy surrounding Rove has led to his low profile in official Washington, a status he made a sly reference to at the top of his speech today: "Anybody want to get their picture in the paper," he asked the audience, gesturing to a slew of cameramen just off stage.

Rove made clear in his remarks that his absence from the political arena has done little to dampen his willingness for hand-to-hand political combat.

On Iraq, Rove said Democrats advocated a "cut-and-run" approach, dismissing the "radical" idea of a withdrawal of American forces beginning in April. "To retreat before victory has been won would be a reckless act -- and this president will not allow it," said Rove. He sounded a similar tone on the NSA domestic spying program, calling it necessary to "protect American lives" -- a motive, Rove alleged, that Democrats did not full understand given their "wild and reckless and false charges" on the matter.

On domestic matters, Rove touted Bush as "one of history's greatest tax-cutting presidents," pointing out that the president has cut taxes in each of the five years he has been in office.  Democrats, said Rove, have an "allergy" to tax cuts --  a line that drew sardonic laughter from the friendly crowd.

He also detailed the electoral successes spawned from the president's policies, including control of Congress and a the majority of governor's mansions around the country.  Rove contrasted this point in history with where Republicans were four decades ago -- a seemingly permanent minority party.

"We need to learn from our successes -- and from the failure of others," Rove warned. "As the governing party in America, Republicans cannot grow tired or timid. We have been the opportunity to govern; we have to continue to show we deserve the trust of our fellow Americans."

(One interesting sidenote from the speech: Rove quickly exited stage left and beat a hasty retreat to his car, which was waiting outside. Unfortunately, the keys weren't in it. After a brief moment of panic from Rove's aides, the keys were retrieved and he drove off into an unseasonably warm Washington afternoon.)

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 20, 2006; 2:00 PM ET
Categories:  Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Calif.: Arnold Beefs Up Campaign Team
Next: House Leadership Election: Week Two

Comments

White House political Svengali Karl Rove made a rare public appearance Friday in Washington, D.C., delivering a brief-but-pointed address at the Republican National Committee's winter meeting.
I do not agree.For more info go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl

Posted by: warsaw hotels | September 27, 2006 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Personally I'd prefer the TRUTH to Bush's "consequences"!

Three things Bush, Rove, and Cheney are afraid of:

1) Cindy Sheehan.

2) Jack Abramoff.

3) US, as in, you and me, the American people!

Posted by: Vanna | February 14, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Thanks! By way of explanation, I am a conservative, and while toiling through 80+ comments of Rove-bashing isn't a cup of tea, your comments, (yes pretty much everyone of you), invigorated me with laughter and even hope.

I smiled my devilish Republican smile, snickered in my evil Republican shrill, hell I probably cackled too! You guys were a total hoot, from your pathetic stance on NSA surveillance, your falsehoods about the lack of discovered WMDs in Iraq, your laughable suggestion that because 9/11 happened during W's presidency he bares the brunt of the blame. But the real kicker, the ones that truly made my black conservative heart move, were the desperate ones, desperate to beat Rove, desperate to show the American public what a monster he is, the vast majority of these posts oozed with it.

So thanks again post-ers (no writing a comment doesn't make you a blogger, even if it is your dream), you made my day, I think I'll go suck the blood of an urban resident now, in sacrifice to Rove of course. Peace!

Posted by: JustB | January 25, 2006 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Rove's reference to President Bush being the President with the most tax cuts passed during his term as president is very true; HOWEVER, at what cost! The largest national debt in Americas history; major cuts in government programs, that burden the states and cities to pick up the difference at a time when there is a great need; the beginning of what looks like a "Big Brother" government(not studing history previous socities failures, when the "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing",) Hum.; I love history, not to live in the past but to learn from others mistakes and improve on or build up from. But at 66 years of age, having live through a great period of social change, I've come to the conclusion that humanity repeats itself, making the same dumb mistakes; However, these are the times and enviroment conditions that can not regroup from these mistakes anymore.

Posted by: Wake Up America | January 24, 2006 7:35 PM | Report abuse

OJ sez:
"This whole dispute is just a battle between different factions of the East Coast self-appointed pseudo-intelligentsia"


Nope, OJ, sadly enough, you are wrong.

This dispute has the end result that people die: Our friends and neighbors, our kinfolk, our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers that serve in uniform.

They signed on to serve their country. They are not supposed to sign on to die for some stubborn stooge and his power-hungry handlers who are all pathologically incapable of admitting error.

Speaking not only as a citizen, but also as a veteran, who has seen first-hand the results of war, I am opposed to the way the current administration is conducting this war, and furthermore, I am doing everything I can to ensure that none of my children die uselessly while the draft-dodging neo-cons are running the show.

Posted by: Sage | January 23, 2006 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Rove got it wrong again AND SO DID THE PRESS.
First of all, since when does Rove speak for the Democrats. (PRESS KEEPS PARROTING REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS)
Second, there is the PRE-(w)BUSH era: read; the RULE of LAW
and the POST-(w) BUSH era: read; Rule of King W.

IMPEACH THE KING
The KING IS FINK

Posted by: IP | January 23, 2006 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Sorry OJ, but this debate is not about "nothing". Wake up! People are dying and lives are being changed for the worse daily because of this corrupt and inept administration. There was a time when Bush had a fairly high approval rating in this country. He squandered that support on his own, it wasn't the New York Times editorial page that did him in. Those who are smart enough to graduate from those "pretentious east coast universities" are hardly the problem with this country. The problem is the wackos who allow fear and hatred to be used as a tool to distract them into voting against their own interests, and a toothless media that can't even bring itself to spend more than 15 seconds on stories about the soldiers dying every day in this disgusting war. Yeah, it's too bad that both sides have so much "hatred" for each other but what is really sick is that the President has done nothing to change the tone of the debate. If anything, he is responsible for driving the wedge deeper in his attempt to shore up what little support he has left.

Posted by: Maria | January 23, 2006 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Accountability... that's certainly one way our President and his administration have changed the face of American government. In keeping with this new standard, Mr. Rove did not this time nor does he ever answer for his actions.

I hope that in Mr. Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation in the Plame case Mr. Rove's role is clearly delineated in the outing of that particular CIA operative. There's simply too much smoke there for Scooter Libby to be the only fire, eh?

The Abramoff scandal brings to mind another of our current administration's practices: they only make something right if they get caught doing it. In this case, it would be Mr. Bush answering to the FISA court on his unauthorized wiretapping activity.

What is disheartening is that we impeach Clinton for lying under oath about something he never should have had to testify in the first place, and so far no major stink has been raised concerning President Bush's clear violation of the law. I'll grant you that fighting terrorism allows you some leeway, but the structure was already in place to allow the president to take quick action, in the middle of the night if need be, and... he simply ignored it.

On this matter of accountability, I am beginning to wonder if they even care anymore whether they break the law - US or International - in whatever it is they think they ought to be doing. This isn't the way it's supposed to work in America.

I'll go back to being proud about being a US citizen when we clean house in Washington starting at the top. Failure to react to pre 9/11 intelligence, fixing the policy around the decision to invade Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Valerie Plame, now the wiretapping... I'm sick of it. I don't think I'm alone either.

Posted by: Interesting ending | January 23, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Accountability... that's certainly one way our President and his administration have changed the face of American government. In keeping with this new standard, Mr. Rove did not this time nor does he ever answer for his actions.

I hope that in Mr. Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation in the Plame case Mr. Rove's role is clearly delineated in the outing of that particular CIA operative. There's simply too much smoke there for Scooter Libby to be the only fire, eh?

The Abramoff scandal brings to mind another of our current administration's practices: they only make something right if they get caught doing it. In this case, it would be Mr. Bush answering to the FISA court on his unauthorized wiretapping activity.

What is disheartening is that we impeach Clinton for lying under oath about something he never should have had to testify in the first place, and so far no major stink has been raised concerning President Bush's clear violation of the law. I'll grant you that fighting terrorism allows you some leeway, but the structure was already in place to allow the president to take quick action, in the middle of the night if need be, and... he simply ignored it.

On this matter of accountability, I am beginning to wonder if they even care anymore whether they break the law - US or International - in whatever it is they think they ought to be doing. This isn't the way it's supposed to work in America.

I'll go back to being proud about being a US citizen when we clean house in Washington starting at the top. Failure to react to pre 9/11 intelligence, fixing the policy around the decision to invade Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Valerie Plame, now the wiretapping... I'm sick of it. I don't think I'm alone either.

Posted by: Interesting ending | January 23, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

He failed to mention that the last catastrophe
to hit this country (hurricanes) was
followed by abysmal leadership from
his boss, GWB.

Posted by: war_hater | January 23, 2006 9:32 AM | Report abuse

"No one cares about any of this." Umm, OJ? This is a BLOG. That very few people read it is a given. However, that no one cares about where the country is going is a vast overstatement.

I don't read the NYT editorial page. I'd rebut more of your comment but I just don't care about any of it.

Posted by: Judge Crater | January 23, 2006 9:14 AM | Report abuse

RED ROVER...RED ROVER...
Send CARL ROVE over

HE will be lead away in handcuffs soon.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2006 6:21 PM | Report abuse

All of you people are just a total disgrace. What is wrong with you? You are obsessed with stupidity. No one cares about any of this. The left is obsessed with their hatred of Bush and are just puppets of the New York Times editorial page and their ridiculous pretentious East Coast universities, reliving the Vietnam War protests and aborting all of their children. The right is obsessed with defending Bush at all costs, and many of them are just puppets of Fox News, which is laughing all the way to the bank - they don't care about ideology, and most Bush supporters are just trust fund children anyway. This whole dispute is just a battle between different factions of the East Coast self-appointed pseudo-intelligentsia. You people look like complete fools

Posted by: OJ Simpson | January 22, 2006 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Daniel makes a good point and could also add that old classic quote from another founding father, Benjamin Franklin, who turned 300 a few days ago... went something like.. "Those who would sacrifice Liberty in exchange for security, deserve neither Liberty nor security". Interesting how relevant that quote is with today's issues.
agnostic

Posted by: agnostic | January 22, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

"You might just find yourself mis-underestimating this man's talents. You certainly have so far."
Posted by: Dikaiosyne | Jan 22, 2006 4:01:06 AM
"Mis-underestimating?"....hmmm....sounds like a Bushism.

Posted by: Daniel | January 22, 2006 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"To retreat before victory has been won would be a reckless act -- and this president will not allow it," said Rove....Wasn't it Bush who said "Mission accomplished"?...So let's bring our troops home then!
As far as domestic wire tapping to save American lives is concerned;what about Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death?" Rather than preserving buildings and business infrastructure, Bush should be trying to preserve our WAY of LIFE...freedom.

Posted by: Daniel | January 22, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

One thing which absolutely amazes me is how zealous the Republican machinery went after Clinton by spending well over $60M in taxpayer money for the Whitewater investigation that went nowhere and which had no direct effect upon me other than spending my hard-earned tax dollars. And then the "Machine" went after Clinton again by impeachment over a blow job which again, had no personal bearing on me or my family, friends, etc..

Yet, this same "Machine" has no trouble with two questionably won elections, lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which has cost us our own blood, two of whom I knew personally. These deaths would have been justified if we had stayed in Afghanistan where the terrorists were located, and while the rest of the world was behind us, and had 90% American public support until this administration squandered that bi-partisan support by fabricating lies to drag us into Iraq for what? Oil? Bush's own personal vendetta against Hussein? What gives here?

This administration had no exit strategy before going into Iraq! It's quite obvious to me why Colin Powell has distanced himself from this administration because he was an ardent advocate of exit strategies, yet his boss, a silver-spooned, draft-dodger squandered that advice from a genuine, war-tested veteran.

I can say that our Government leaders (both Republicans AND Democrats) are, by far and away, the worst hypocrites. Unlike our founding fathers whom, during the American Revolution, each had personal stakes in that war, and who many made tremendous, personal sacrifices of their own, our leaders of today are not willing to send their own off to fight the big fight they want so badly to win, yet have no problem sending up other people (mainly poor) to fight and die for whatever our leaders feel is justified.

If Bush (and Congress) wants respect from me and half this country in spite of their continued buffoonery, let them send their own sons and daughters over there first to demonstrate to the rest of us that their hearts are truly in the right place, then I'll send my own (or rather myself if I weren't too old.)

We've had a Republican-led government now for some time and our national problems are getting worse, not better. Their own words and misdeeds speak for themselves: Bush cut necessary funding for shoring up New Orleans long before Katrina, and we all know the consequent of that decision. And then the initial lack of leadership all around to deal with this catastrophe only serves to remind us all how vulnerable we all are to our leaders' incompetence (Bush's cronyist-assigned FEMA director who had no relevant experience to run FEMA in the first place).

The we have Rove's psychological hangups from being bullied as a nerd-kid have come back to haunt us all by his power-mongering zealous behavior to go after anyone whom he perceives as violating his warped world view. Even to the point of demostrating an open willingness to sacrifice a few of his own CIA subordinates' lives and exposing countless other CIA operatives. Where is the "moral integrity" and "honor" that Bush initially stated he wanted to bring to the Presidency after Clinton's administration? Where is that same Clinton-hating Republican outrage here? Doesn't this justify immediate expulsion of Rove? Why is Rove still in the White House?

And what about Dick Cheney's behind-the-scenes link to Halliburton who magically wins both domestic and foreign contracts by the billions is both unfair to fair-minded competitors and sickening to the rest of us who are footing the grossly overcharged bill in the first place? Where is the public outrage here? Who among Republican supporters go along with this extreme unfairness and why?

"Corporate America" never has enough tax breaks, tax shelters, tax loopholes, and the Ivy League CEO's who lead them are not making enough money with their yearly 12% salary increases while cutting out the average worker's pension, or worse yet, sending their job overseas. Why do average American Republican supporters (who make under $100K/yr) go along with this philosophy?

Let's face it, "Trickle Down", in theory, sounds good but in reality doesn't trickle down but evaporates by the time it reaches the bottom rung of society. How much more must the average working American have to give for their CEO to have another yacht, swimming pool, or another beach house?
We all like those who succeed in their own enterprise and have tremendous success but where is that line of fairness drawn with respect to the point of oppressing the middle and lower classes (meaning MOST Americans)?

In addition to this mess, we have the insecure, xenophobic, homophobic "Religious Right" who have tagged along this circus to dumb-down our country and drive away the intelligence which historically has made our country an intellectual powerhouse. (It's not a culture war, it's an intellectual war. Smart people vs dumb people for those who still don't get it.) Recall how Germany's fanatics drove out Einstein and his contempories?

The justification of the "Machine" going after Clinton for his screwups yesterday pale in comparison to what's going on with the "Machine" itself today.

That's my 2¢ worth.
agnostic

P.S. I hope the would-be flamers of my statement can at least agree with me in that I wish the majority of Americans would stop fighting among themselves, and start voting out our corrupt leaders of whatever party and demand integrity and accountability of our leaders. They, and the wealthy, special-interest groups with whom they share the same proverbial bed are the ones who are running the show nowadays, not the people, and we the people need to take back our country before our leaders really screw things up for the rest of us.

Posted by: agnostic | January 22, 2006 11:43 AM | Report abuse

i see at least one blog is not shut down at WaPo. just the same, i find myself loggin' on to the post site less and less.
http://einkleinesblog.blogspot.com
p.s. ditto, your ombudsman is a friggin' disgrace.

Posted by: jay lassiter | January 22, 2006 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Remarkable to me how a man who helped out a CIA agent can get away with lecturing the Democrats about national security. And the corporatist right wing media such as the Washington Post allows him to get away with it.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

P.S. Your ombudsman is a disgrace.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | January 22, 2006 8:41 AM | Report abuse

Interesting commentary here by Sr. Bojangles and ErrinF. Everyone agrees that Rove represents the corruption of intelligent debate and thoughtful consideration of the facts. The righties have thoughtfully provided examples of the kind of misinformation that are the fodder of Faux News and other such outlets. The ridiculous issue of the voting turnout from the counties (how many people live in some of the counties in the Great Plains? 12?) is a good example that heads in the direction of trashing our system of government to retain power. Reminds me of the court challenge that Bush II had planned in 2000 to overturn the Electoral College results.

The question is: how to beat this garbage back when it clearly appeals to so many? What's comforting is that all that is needed is a good candidate. Both of the last two elections were extremely close. Ohio swung to Bush because the homophobes were motivated to turn out in large numbers. With Blackwell as a gubernatorial candidate in 2006, for example, these same voters will stay home in large numbers because of the same inherent racism. Logical debate does little to motivate these voters. They aren't posting to this blog; they aren't reading anything beyond their own local newspapers.

A debate on suitable presidential candidates is the next step (Mark Warner still stands out in my eyes). The alternative is to continue to lament the deplorable state of the voting public.

Posted by: lpdrjk | January 22, 2006 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Far be it from me to take to task the left wing Bush and Rove haters here in this forum. You might want to consider that this is the man that engineered the last two presidential elections and sets the course for the GOP which has maintained it's control over the government machine the last eight years (and rather easily at that). He make look like a doofus but he knows how to develop and implement strategy for his party. You might just find yourself mis-underestimating this man's talents. You certainly have so far.

A little aside here. It has been written in the WP that there seems to be little interest in Abramhoff scandal by the electorate. Seems that the intelligensia can't understand why this issue doesn't resonate. Is it too early? Is it simply that we members of the electorate believe that the "culture of corruption" is and has been prevalent for so many years that we simply expect it of our elected leaders to be corrupt? To both questions I say....maybe. I chuckled a little bit when I read that a member of the GOP congress from the great state of Tennesee can't believe that the popularity of a anti-IRS book garners more interest than the corruption in Congress. Perhaps someone could call or write Mr. Wamp(R)Tennesee that many folks in the hinterlands attribute the corruption in Washington TO the existence of the IRS. Should he wish to truly end the "culture" in Washington then perhaps he should join Linder and his supporters in the abolition of the IRS and all the political favors that get dispensed by altering the tax code. No income tax equals no corruption. Something to think about.

Posted by: Dikaiosyne | January 22, 2006 4:01 AM | Report abuse

All this talk inside the Beltway stays exactly where it came from: inside-the-beltway. Most americans have higher priorities then dissecting which lobbyist gave what to whom. If anyone really wants to stop the coercion that goes on between lobbyist and our representives they should start by admitting that it's problem that infects both parties.
Posted by: KTC | Jan 21, 2006 5:41:37 PM

Keep dreaming. Americans hate corruption in government, and this Abramoff scandal is primarily about Republicans and their 'K Street Project'. You're willing to excuse this corruption because it is Republican, and only mention corruption in the Democratic party in hopes to protect your party from the voter retribution it deserves and will get come Election Day. That the rank and file of the GOP turned into a bunch of apologists that constantly excuse the wrongdoings of corrupt politicians is beyond me. You jokers aren't even serious about national security, at least not to the point where you stop corruption occurring in your party during a time of war. Duke Cunningham talked tough about national security too, all the while driving a Rolls-Royce received due to a corrupt defense contract kickback. THAT'S how a Republican congressman perceives national security, apparently.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 21, 2006 8:30 PM | Report abuse

The Abramoff scandal is a REPUBLICAN scandal because the money from Abramoff and his clients is only tied to bribery type activity in specific cases, as in a congressman from Ohio (Ney) standing up to give his strong opinion on casinos in LA and AL. There have been ZERO ties to Democrats for this behavior. Not all the work that Abramoff and his firms did was illegal. Not every penny from his clients are tied to illegal behavior. Until one of you righties can point out a Dem under investigation I'd keep this issue on the down low if I were you.

The people who think that 87% of counties voting for Bush is relevant apparently looked for a long time for a factoid with a big number. This one is irrelevant for many reasons. The political reality of the situation is that people who live in rural areas vote for people like Bush because Bush tells them that their guns are important to him and that all their problems are caused by illegal immigrants and minorities or liberal elites or one of the other thought repellant talking points the Rove's of the world spew.

People in cities actually come in contact with Arabs and Mexicans and Blacks and Whites etc. and they realize how essentially alike we all are and how important our diversity is to our nation. (Of course there are exceptions whenever one speaks in generalities.) The rhetoric of the right-wing doesn't work with someone who lives in a multi-cultural neighborhood and who doesn't think their right to bear arms is being infringed upon.

Right wingers - do yourselves a favor, not every fact and quote and detail in the newspaper is the product of some liberal media conspiracy. But if that's too scary a prospect, read books or comments by Republicans like Gen. Zinni, Col. Wilkerson, former Treasury head Paul O'Neil, Senator Jeffords, and Richard Clarke. None of whom are liberals and none of whom would ever support the foreign policy of this administration. All of these men had serious insider information and came to the same conclusion - run, get away, the Constitution is being affronted by this administration.

I'll leave you with a quote from the last Republican who ever made me feel like I wish I were a Republican, Teddy Roosevelt.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Posted by: Sr. Bojangles | January 21, 2006 7:33 PM | Report abuse

oops "one"=won.

Posted by: KTC | January 21, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse


ErrinF,

I'm not blaming you for anything or any other liberal for that matter. Whatever grief that happens to me is because of my doing. If John Kerry had one the presidency it wouldn't have changed the way I live one bit. Unlike the liberal philophy I don't rely on the Government to solve my problems. Anytime a person starts relying on the Government to solve all their problems they remain in a catatonic state they can never get out of.

All this talk inside the Beltway stays exactly where it came from: inside-the-beltway. Most americans have higher priorities then dissecting which lobbyist gave what to whom. If anyone really wants to stop the coercion that goes on between lobbyist and our representives they should start by admitting that it's problem that infects both parties.

Posted by: KTC | January 21, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Sage you're absolutely right. "Really Though" or "Ken" or whomever he claims as his alias is not interested in denouncing anything that the Re-uglithans do. He thinks it's right! But of course to say otherwise and point fingers at another party for taking money would be to have three more fingers pointed at him and the uglithans. "Really Though", "Ken", again, Abrahamoff would never deal with Democrats, which means he has never given any, nada, nothing to them whatsoever. He has given 100% of any monies he's given to the party that represents his sleazy ideals: The Re-Uglithan Party! Democrats have received money from clients whom he has worked with in the past,and even at that, far less than what they have given Re-Uglithans for that matter. Those are two very differnt sets of people. But of course you wouldn't know that because you either have your head in the sand with your arse stuck in the air or you have your nose in Bush/Cheney/Re-uglithan's arse and can't see the forest for the trees! Either way, you are in a bad situation, none of which I wish for myself! Get your facts straight. Thanks for the research, but that research should have taught you something more than just: "The Democrats are doing it too!" Sheesh!

Posted by: Marve | January 21, 2006 5:12 PM | Report abuse

You liberals love to be unhappy, and you need someone to blame.
Posted by: KTC | Jan 20, 2006 9:11:51 PM

What a joke hearing a conservative say liberals need somebody to blame. The blame game is played most vocally by conservatives against liberals. Liberals get blamed for EVERYTHING. Just read the posts here (such as the idiotic moonbat one) if you need proof.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 21, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Remember the horrorific casualties and damage resulting from al Qaada's Millenium attack?
Of course you don't, because in those Tail Wagging the Dog days the Democrats' pre-9/11 mentality thwarted it.
If Bush and company had kept their eye on the ball and prevented the six 9/11 conspirators fingered by Surete and others for connections with known hijackers, Rove might be able to call us wrong.
Dragging the entire Arab populace into the fight against us is not the way to win the war on terror.

Robert Chapman

Posted by: robert chapman | January 21, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

More than anything else, a person can be judged by the heroes he admires and follows.

I wonder what this means for the people who think Karl Rove is god's gift to mankind.

Posted by: lib | January 21, 2006 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Looks like a lot of non-thinkers drank the Kool-Aid and now believe whatever comes out Rove/Cheney/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld. That's too bad for our country.

Wait, let me rephrase that. Not a lot, just a sufficiently large enough number to push the current administration a slight edge over the opposition. About 52%. That still leaves 48% of the people who did not vote for the current stooge.

And as for the Abramoff bribery scandal, your only defense is charging that Dems also took money?!!

Wow, that is profound. Instead of renouncing the sleaze that permeates the entire republican admininstration your only defense is that the Dems are as sleazy as you.

Hardly an auspicious start to convincing the opposition your stance is correct.

Posted by: Sage | January 21, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Who IS Karl Rove? Did anybody vote for him? Ever? Then why does he deserve to be listened to as if he were the head of this administration? He doesn't, but the rest of the administration can't speak! Bush can't put two words together without tripping on them; Cheney can't keep his mouth out of the gutter long enough to make a speech, and the rest of them are just Yes Men and Women.

The reason we have become a nation of half-witted sheep is FEAR. No president can assure us of total safety; that is unrealistic. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." How right FDR was. Quote that every time some turd from this administration says "9/11" and maybe a few of us will get enough courage to save this country from going down the drain.

Posted by: virginia | January 21, 2006 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Although a flawed philosophy on over generalizing all Democrats . Mr. Rove did show he could put the boxing gloves back on adn give the press a great sound bite ...post 9/11 adn pre 9/11 thinkning..that was brilliant except for the little fact that we ALL lived through that time period in history therefore it WILL effect how all of us approach foriegn policy. All the same have to give Rove a little clap clap for the sound byte.

Posted by: James | January 21, 2006 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Rove is a communist. His distorted view of the world is simple. He stands for nothing but an ego driven, "I win" stragegy. Never once in a speech or interview has the man ever said anything close to being compassionate or showing humanity. Why the media affixes attention on the man who destroyed the US after 911 is beyond me. Remember, it was Karl Rove who said, I will run a weak on terrorism against every democrat. This from the administration before the invasion of Iraq. Rove is a digusting, ego manic, jerk. I do not give him credit for the GOP success. Why, because that has to be reserved for the Reagan/Bush 1 Supreme court.

As for VivaBush, well guess what, you will have to live with one salient fact. History will judge George Dubya Bush as the most ignorant, dumbest, arrogant useless president ever in the US. Mark my word, 20 years from now, Bush jokes will be common place fodder. And the neo con zealots will be but a pimple on the ass of the Democrats Donkey.

Posted by: IndictRove | January 21, 2006 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Ken, "Really, though..":

An important distinction: "Abramoff-related sources" means "the indian tribes and other clients that used Abramoff's services". Republicans, on the other hand, received funds from Abramoff himself or his companies, this according to for example this fine newspaper.

Whether 'regular' lobbying is any better is debateable.

Posted by: aroo? | January 21, 2006 3:33 AM | Report abuse

"In total, Senate Democrats and their national committees have accepted $3.1 million, compared with $4.3 million in contributions to Republicans from Mr. Abramoff, his clients and his associates. "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051213-111244-2879r.htm

Posted by: Ken | January 21, 2006 3:13 AM | Report abuse

Why is it so hard for anyone to think that a "democrat" can't take illegal money?

Wow - that takes alot of blind faith, especially
since senators are giving back money! LOL

Here is a 'link" since you asked for one, but
first the first paragraph of the story and the headline:

Dorgan returns Abramoff money
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 14, 2005

"The top Democrat on the Senate committee investigating casino lobbyist Jack Abramoff is returning $67,000 in donations after press reports showed that he collected the money from Mr. Abramoff's gambling clients around the time he took actions favorable to those clients.
Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, said he hasn't done anything wrong but is returning the money to avoid the appearance of any conflict."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051213-111244-2879r.htm


Now go to sleep, it's too late for this-you'll read it and wont believe it... ;-)

Posted by: Ken - American | January 21, 2006 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Really Though: sources? Or are you just making this up or pulling it off someone else who made it up? Hello? Hello? Earth to Really Though?

Posted by: Really Nothing | January 20, 2006 11:52 PM | Report abuse

"It doesn't make it right. It simply means that the non-thinkers have been suckered in because the current Admin knows how what buttons to push."

So it's your assertion that all those who voted for Bush were the "non-thinkers"?

Guess I better go think about that one so it can really sink in....

So why didn't the "thinkers" who hate Bush
put up a candidate who could compete? America OVERWHELMINGLY voted for President Bush.

Overwhelmingly - the LARGEST MARGIN EVER.
Period.

So those were the "non-thinkers" then right?

The intelligent ones were on the net
posting at the Washington Post Pro-Democrat Blog - see where it got them? It got them at LEAST 8 years of bitterness and "idle" talk, and statements like yours:

"It simply means that the non-thinkers have been suckered in because the current Admin knows how what buttons to push."

:-)

Really Though...

Here is a list of DEMOCRATS who accepted money from Abramoff and/or his "clients".

They were hand fed a list of Democrats to
contribute to, and they DID. Here's the BIG
SURPRISE --they all ACCEPTED IT! LOL

Hot Topics


Forty of forty five members of the Democrat Senate Caucus took money from Abramoff related sources. Below is a breakdown of how much each Democrat Senator received:


Max Baucus
(D-MT)


Received At Least $22,500

Evan Bayh
(D-IN)


Received At Least $6,500

Joseph Biden
(D-DE)


Received At Least $1,250


Jeff Bingaman
(D-NM)

Received At Least $2,000
Barbara Boxer
(D-CA)

Received At Least $20,250
Maria Cantwell
(D-WA)

Received At Least $21,765

Tom Carper
(D-DE)

Received At Least $7,500
Hillary Clinton
(D-NY)

Received At Least $12,950
Kent Conrad
(D-ND)

Received At Least $8,000

Jon Corzine
(D-NJ)

Received At Least $7,500
Chris Dodd
(D-CT)

Received At Least $14,792
Byron Dorgan
(D-ND)

Received At Least $79,300

Dick Durbin
(D-IL)

Received At Least $14,000
Dianne Feinstein
(D-CA)

Received At Least $2,000
Russ Feingold
(D-WI)

Received At Least $1,250

Tom Harkin
(D-IA)

Received At Least $45,750
Daniel Inouye
(D-HI)

Received At Least $9,000
Jim Jeffords
(I-VT)

Received At Least $2,000

Tim Johnson
(D-SD)

Received At Least $14,250
Ted Kennedy
(D-MA)

Received At Least $3,300
John Kerry
(D-MA)

Received At Least $98,550

Mary Landrieu
(D-LA)

Received At Least $28,000
Pat Leahy
(D-VT)

Received At Least $4,000
Carl Levin
(D-MI)

Received At Least $6,000

Joe Lieberman
(D-CT)

Received At Least $29,830
Blanche Lincoln
(D-AR)

Received At Least $14,891
Barbara Mikulski
(D-MD)

Received At Least $10,550

Patty Murray
(D-WA)

Received At Least $78,991
Bill Nelson
(D-FL)

Received At Least $20,168
Ben Nelson
(D-NE)

Received At Least $5,200

Barack Obama
(D-IL)

Received At Least $7,500
Mark Pryor
(D-AR)

Received At Least $2,300
Jack Reed
(D-RI)

Received At Least $3,500

Harry Reid
(D-NV)

Received At Least $68,941
John Rockefeller
(D-WV)

Received At Least $4,000
Senator Ken Salazar
(D-CO)

Received At Least $4,500

Paul Sarbanes
(D-MD)

Received At Least $4,300
Chuck Schumer
(D-NY)

Received At Least $29,550
Debbie Stabenow
(D-MI)

Received At Least $6,250

Ron Wyden
(D-OR)

Received At Least $6,250

You cant rely on the Washington Post to feed you what they WANT you to hear -go for the FACTS.

You asked for a LIST of DEMOCRATS that took money from Abramoff sources?

Since you asked. :-)

Really Though....

Posted by: Really Though.... | January 20, 2006 11:41 PM | Report abuse

KARL ROVE IS A gOD

Posted by: VIVABUSH04OH | January 20, 2006 11:24 PM | Report abuse

"If George Bush and Company are so bad...why did he win 87% of the counties votes across America?"

Because counties are not limited by
population. For example, Manhattan with
its millions of people is only one county.

"Why is he there a 2nd term?"

Enough people voted for Bush. On the
other hand, over fifty million did not.


"Why are there no Democrat ideas put forth in Congress or anywhere else, only "bash-Bush"?"

There are, quite a few. Democrats are,
though, unable to actually do much in
the way of legislation due to that whole
democratic thing where the majority (of
the Congress) decides what is done.


"Ambramoff DID send MILLIONS of dollars to EAGERLY waiting Democrats! WOW -get over it already."

I believe one hundred percent of money
from Abramoff went to the Republicans.
You are free to post links proving
otherwise.

"If there is anyone who thinks money is only flowing from lobbyists to one political party, then they are fooling themselves."

This is true.

"REPLY:
If William Clinton and Albert Gore would have accepted him while in CUSTODY AFTER attacking the World Trade Center the FIRST TIME, there would have benn NO "9-11".

Think about it."

Can you provide links to something
that proves this assertion?

Posted by: roo | January 20, 2006 11:16 PM | Report abuse

My God read what you're writing. Your words prove Rove's point. You are all living back in the gravy days of American socialism the only problem is your heroes are all dead. FDR, JFK, LBJ and Harry the Haberdasher are all gone. The Dems represent a black hole of talent right now. All reasonable arguments pro or con on any issue disappear into their intelluctal shallows, called by the shrill sirens of a press weaned on Viet Nam. The spawn of modern liberalism is having a very hard time surviving the natural selection process of hard realty.

Posted by: Earle Pitts, American | January 20, 2006 10:42 PM | Report abuse

What do ya know...Karl Rove is revitalizing images of 9-ll and linking it to every relative Presidential decision within reach (I apologize for capitalizing President in this context). The republican spin machine is in front of the cameras and working his magic. Isn't it amazing how many people worship such incoherent arguments!!

Without a doubt, Rove is a brilliant man that can shape realities before and after they reach virgin minds. He truly understands how to lead the herd of millions of once republicans and now neocons that are running this country into the ground. Wouldn't it be great if the Democrats could have strong leadership, a clear direction, and undeniable responses to so many of these neoconservative fallacies!!!

Posted by: Holt | January 20, 2006 10:01 PM | Report abuse

"If George Bush and Company are so bad...why did he win 87% of the counties votes across America? Why is he there a 2nd term?"

Because the general level of intellect is dropping in America. College students need remedial courses, are unable to understand credit offers... etc.. People in general are getting intellectually lazy and thus shysters like Rove are able to pull the wool over their eyes.

It doesn't make it right. It simply means that the non-thinkers have been suckered in because the current Admin knows how what buttons to push.

Posted by: Sage | January 20, 2006 9:46 PM | Report abuse

If George Bush and Company are so bad...why did he win 87% of the counties votes across America? Why is he there a 2nd term?

Why are there no Democrat ideas put forth in Congress or anywhere else, only "bash-Bush"?

Ambramoff DID send MILLIONS of dollars to EAGERLY waiting Democrats! WOW -get over it already. If there is anyone who thinks money is only flowing from lobbyists to one political party, then they are fooling themselves.

QUOTE:
"If the Bush Administration truly had a "post-9/11" worldview, Osama bin Laden would have been captured or killed by now, instead of alive and able to plot and make constant threats against the U.S." Guy B. Jones

REPLY:

If William Clinton and Albert Gore would have accepted him while in CUSTODY AFTER attacking the World Trade Center the FIRST TIME, there would have benn NO "9-11".

Think about it.

Posted by: Ken R - Wichita Kansas | January 20, 2006 9:34 PM | Report abuse

If the Bush Administration truly had a "post-9/11" worldview, Osama bin Laden would have been captured or killed by now, instead of alive and able to plot and make constant threats against the U.S.

Posted by: Guy B. Jones | January 20, 2006 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Please - let's keep the focus on Chandra

Posted by: Gary Condit | January 20, 2006 9:16 PM | Report abuse


You liberals love to be unhappy, and you need someone to blame. Bush could be sh*tting all of you tiffany cufflinks and you still wouldn't be happy. You all are taking years off your life with your incessant anger. Like it or not you're stuck with this current president for another 3 years. Are you sure you can keep up this anger level for that long?

Even when you guys are right it doesn't seem to matter because your smugness and "I smarter then you" attitude is the only thing people will remember in the end.

Posted by: KTC | January 20, 2006 9:11 PM | Report abuse

You guys are really a hoot.

I don't think Mr. Rove has much to worry about if the Democrats he will be competing against have the same distorted view of reality generally expressed in the comments here.

Posted by: TANSTAAFL | January 20, 2006 8:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm sickened that they propped Rove up there, and the audience applauded so vigorously. He's not investigated for matters of principle that may fall outside the law, or some noble cause that has an old blue law attached..he's investigated for outing an American spy for political reasons, and the implications of that could have gone very deep for all we know. And they applauded him.

I'm sickened they applaud DeLay too, because he's charged with ripping off Americans on a very grand scale. He was a pesticide sprayer when he was elected to congress.

Posted by: Pacito | January 20, 2006 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Ha!

When it comes to publishing GOP talking points as propunded by Chairman Karl, the WaPo's great desire to be fair and balanced, irrespective of what the facts are, evaporates in thin air.

Oh Ms. Howell! Where art thou?

Posted by: lib | January 20, 2006 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Fear, fear, fear that's all Karl Rowe and President Bush have to offer. They talk about a pre and post 9/11 mentality trying to make the American people forget that they have failed to destroy the enemy who killed 3,000 Americans. Instead of devoting all our resources to destroying Al Queda we are bogged down in a civil war in Iraq. This is serving as a cause celebre for islamic extremists. Instead of developing a real policy to protect the homeland Bush is looking for a needle in the haystack by wiretapping and spying on the American people. The American people must wake up and realize that Rowe and Bush are arrogant powerhungry incompetents. The world is less safe today under their leadership. Now if only a democrat has the balls to say this and stick to it.

Posted by: steve | January 20, 2006 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Rove's most important legacy will be the deconstruction of a representative democracy, catalyzing a decline initiated decades ago. On the upside, the Bush administration will be forever linked to this fellow - ensuring a less than honorable legacy.

http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com

Posted by: truth4achange | January 20, 2006 7:52 PM | Report abuse


This is a common problem with me and my fellow moonbat friends we aren't very well informed. For you moonbats that don't know who you are here it is free of charge.

What Is A Moonbat and Why Do Moonbats Bark?

Well, the ancient Latin word for moon was luna, which is why we talk about lunar cycles which are responsible for women's PMS attacks among other evils visited upon mankind since we climbed down from the trees. Also from the Latin lunaticus, which translates as "moon-struck", we derive the word lunatic. The Romans thought that recurring bouts of madness were caused by cycles of the moon. The Roman men obviously had the same problems with their women as we do today but it would be nearly 2000 years before this "lunacy" was diagnosed as PMS.

So we see that the moon (aka, Luna) has always been associated with mental problems of one sort or another for thousands of years. There has to be some connection there. All those people couldn't be wrong could they?

Which brings us to the subject of bats. Bats are essentially just ugly little rats with wings. Rats by themselves are a damned nuisance but when you strap wings on the little bastards they become mortal terrors. Then if you take away their eyesight and give them bult-in radar so they can fly at night (by moonlight, of course) you end up with the definition of evil (with apologies to Bruce Wayne's alter-ego).

And if you give these monsters fangs they become blood-suckers and before you can say "Transylvania" you have Count Dracula flying in the window and drinking the blood of nice young girls with scanty night-clothes and big breasts in old Christopher Lee movies.

So now we come to the combination of the two: Moonbat. This is the human personification of the two terms described above. It is a human whose cerebral cortex has turned to silly putty causing him or her to mentally slide down the evolutionary ladder to the level of a winged rat who is influenced by the moon and wants to suck your blood. Also affectionately known as a "Democrat".


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1378208/posts

Posted by: Moonbat Liberal | January 20, 2006 6:54 PM | Report abuse

The man should be given a fair trial then sent to prison for fifty years

Posted by: John Smith | January 20, 2006 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The man should be given a fair trial then sent to prison for fifty years

Posted by: John Smith | January 20, 2006 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Rove comments on spying ... here's a new context for you...

From an article in the Colorado Daily

Quote from Bush in 2004 --

"A wiretap requires a court order," President Bush declared in a statement in 2004. He added, "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order when we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand [that] constitutional guarantees are in place... because we value the Constitution."

Posted by: john | January 20, 2006 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Whether one likes Mr. Rove or not, the fact is that he is a very cleaver political strategist with two presidential elections on his belt.
Posted by: Mukhtar Ainashe | Jan 20, 2006 5:42:02 PM

Unless you count in that Al Gore and John Kerry couldn't beat a paper bag in a presidential contest, and that the 2000 election was won because of a butterfly ballot that confused old voters.
While I agree that Karl Rove is intelligent and effective, he has also succeeded by an incredible amount of luck, at least on the national scale. His Texas days didn't rely so heavily on butterfly ballots and 9/11's coming out of the blue to help win elections. If anything, the Valerie Plame scandal shows that the greatly exagerrated myth of Rove's political prowess was most likely phoned in by him to reporters than actually ever existed.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 20, 2006 6:21 PM | Report abuse

ErrinF,
I hate to burst your bubble but Rovenge is not the policy that the Dems should have down and Karl Rove is hardly someone to emulate.
Posted by: BigB | Jan 20, 2006 4:30:45 PM

I hate to burst your bubble, but what the hell are you talking about? I never said to emulate Rove. I said that by now the Democrats should have his game down and should be able to counter it accordingly. Indeed, I specifically say 'counter' Rove's tactics in my post, not copy. If you want to go on an anti-Rove diatribe, by all means, go for it, but don't include me in it.
Sheesh. Talk about jumping the gun. It makes me wonder if Rove and his side will win in 2006 if his opposition is going to be as confused as BigB's response to my post.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 20, 2006 6:14 PM | Report abuse


Rove is a shameless blustering front man for our clueless swaggering chief exec. Their idiotic macho behavior is truly disheartening, as they continue to treat the American people like mindless fools and destroy our credibility with the rest of the world. Is it possible that a shred of conscience clings to the soul of Karl - is that why he referred to Bush as "consequential" rather than using some fawning superlative? Save us from these unworthy men! I am heartened only by knowing that karma (as you reap, so shall you sow) is inescapable, and those who think themselves supreme will land in the dung heap of history.

Posted by: TT | January 20, 2006 6:09 PM | Report abuse


Rove is a shameless blustering front man for our clueless swaggering chief exec. Their idiotic macho behavior is truly disheartening, as they continue to treat the American people like mindless fools and destroy our credibility with the rest of the world. Is it possible that a shred of conscience clings to the soul of Karl - is that why he referred to Bush as "consequential" rather than using some fawning superlative? Save us from these unworthy men! I am heartened only by knowing that karma (as you reap, so shall you sow) is inescapable, and those who think themselves supreme will land in the dung heap of history.

Posted by: TT | January 20, 2006 6:09 PM | Report abuse

If you don't agree with the comments then attack the argument rather than resort to ridiculous terms like moonbat.

I'd be happy to argue that the Bush administration has failed us based on the facts at hand i.e., rising deficits, sising poverty, an "F" from the 9-11 commissiom etc. If you support them then stick to the facts and make an argument.

Posted by: Willie | January 20, 2006 6:03 PM | Report abuse

The pallid larva creeps back into the spotlight to entertain it's followers with a tired old divisive stream of bile and that is news?

I am surprised that Rove hasn't filed for a trademark on "9/11" since it seems to be the cornerstone of this administrations policy on almost everything. Rovian tactics are nothing to admire - it's like saying that Goebbels is also worth emulating. Feh.

Posted by: Maria | January 20, 2006 6:01 PM | Report abuse

The pallid larva creeps back into the spotlight to entertain it's followers with a tired old divisive stream of bile and that is news?

I am surprised that Rove hasn't filed for a trademark on "9/11" since it seems to be the cornerstone of this administrations policy on almost everything. Rovian tactics are nothing to admire - it's like saying that Goebbels is also worth emulating. Feh.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse


I'm so glad I'm surrounded by fellow moonbats. Bush Lied, People Died! ... um ... what's another one ... oh uh No Blood for Oil! ... yeah that was a good one.

Posted by: Moonbat Liberal | January 20, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Whether one likes Mr. Rove or not, the fact is that he is a very cleaver political strategist with two presidential elections on his belt. Having said that, he won't be able to persuade me to vote "republican"!

Mukhtar Ainashe
Falls Church, VA.

Ainashe.net

Posted by: Mukhtar Ainashe | January 20, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Rove's days of freedom are numbered.

When is the next Fitzmas day present?

Posted by: Criminal At Large | January 20, 2006 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Nice to know Turd Blossom is still enjoying his freedom out in the fresh air. Pretty soon the sound of applause from the GOP Faithful will replaced by the sound of tin cups scraping against cell bars up and down Block D.

Posted by: Huh? Rove has AIDES? | January 20, 2006 5:27 PM | Report abuse

It won't be Rove who decides "who got it wrong" rather it will be history.

Oh . . . by the way history appears to have already decided Bush got it wrong on invading Iraq for WMD and several other blunders shortly thereafter.

Posted by: max | January 20, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Great comments, but yea one-sided. Reason being, I'm not sure there's much room on Rove's side.

Love him or hate him he is extremely effective. We MUST figure out how to beat him. He attacks candidate's strengths and elicits emotion rather than reason. Well-appointed arguments full of facts and figures do not work when their side is set with an arsenal of short and sweet responses: Oh, it's the liberal media; there's the liberal elites trying to tell us how to live again; you're not supporting the troops with that outline of failed policies over the past five years.

The people on their side have political sounding responses to every issue and they get to feel like they win an argument. Since their faith in the president is not based in specifics but rather in themes they don't have to debate the specifics. A big fat, "I support the president in a time of war" suffices. The only response to that for many of us is, "You're an idiot." And we all know where that gets us.

We must change our tactics. All the facts in the world and a quiver full of Republican defectors like Clarke, Zinni, O'Neil, Wilkerson, the Senator from VT, and we still can't crack their faith.
We need to get in on the emotion. We need to get in on the comments and reactions that call on people's honest desire to be patriotic and to love their country again.

The true genius and concurrently the real evil of this administration is that it uses people's genuine best intentions to do the bidding of corporations and neo-con idealists. Average people will argue that cutting taxes for the rich is good for them. They will argue that fighting a war when we've proven beyond any doubt that the country was in no way ANY type of short-term or medium-term threat is somehow preventing terrorist attacks here, right now.

If that's not genius and if that's not worth evaluating and if necessary emulating then we differ.

Posted by: Sr. Bojangles | January 20, 2006 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I guess Republicans don't read the Fix. I read all of these blog comments.....wow! I'm not sure Rove is doing anything any other bureaucrat is doing (from either side of the aisle....rep or dem)..only the rhetoric and response from people on both sides has gotten more passionate (to put it nicely)

Posted by: American | January 20, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

ErrinF,

I hate to burst your bubble but Rovenge is not the policy that the Dems should have down and Karl Rove is hardly someone to emulate. He is vindictive, self-righteous, mean hearted and spirited, self-serving, only has his own personal agenda on his mind, divisive and a coward. He is everything that America is not and in my book is the worst thing to happen to America since Pearl Harbor.

What Karl Rove does is NOT something that any American should embrace and surely is not something that the Dems should follow. His policies destroy what we as Americans hold true to be self evident and there is no longer a place in America for this and I think the people will show that in the mid-terms. We are not lame-ducking w we are lame-ducking Rove. By now everyone know who wears the pants in this administration. Well, they are probably four legged pants to fit Rove and Cheney.

Granted Rove might be good at what he does, but what he does is wrong and it's destroying our country.

Posted by: BigB | January 20, 2006 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Rove says nothing new here. one thing is clear to me: it's still impossible to polish a turd. everytime Rove opens his mouth, I feel less safe.
http://einkleinesblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by: jay lassiter | January 20, 2006 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I'm disappointed with you. This speech gave no new facts, no new news, no new nothing. It gave just the same old talking points that have turned out to be lies run amok! And Chris, I agree with Cal Gal, you gave no analysis towards this speech...er...tripe; and you seem happy that this speech took place, what with the tidbit that had more to do with nothing:

(One interesting sidenote from the speech: Rove quickly exited stage left and beat a hasty retreat to his car, which was waiting outside. Unfortunately, the keys weren't in it. After a brief moment of panic from Rove's aides, the keys were retrieved and he drove off into an unseasonably warm Washington afternoon.).

Chris, Rovie is full of slime, lies, deceit, and as far as I'm concerned, phart! Please don't waste another space in your blog column to highlight this idiot, unless there is some news that shares that he is about to be indicted and jailed! And please don't waste our time on this blog focusing on this unpatriotic menace!

Posted by: Marve | January 20, 2006 4:09 PM | Report abuse

I think it's best to be realistic about Karl Rove rather than to demonize him or overblow his political abilities. Here's a link to a Frontline/Washington Post collaboration about Rove:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect

While I think Karl Rove is smart and has a knack for what he does, he's hardly a political genius. Rather, he seems to benefit from the Democrats having a bunch of dunces for their politicians and political advisors. It seems to me that at this point, the Democrats should have Rove's game down, and should be able to counter it effectively. Here's a clue to the Democrats: Rove is going to run the same strategy in 2006 that he used in 2002. Iran will be the boogeyman this time around instead of Iraq. Rove will continue try to define the post-9/11 era in his terms, even though it is questionable if we are still in such an era after Hurricane Katrina (It could be argued that we're in a post post-9/11 era now after Katrina).
Personally, I just don't buy into the Republicans being stronger on national security. They are merely paper tigers. The Bush administration failed to deter 9/11 from occurring, have ran the Iraq War badly, and have a corrupt Congress under their watch. They talk tough (for political gain) but don't walk the walk. If the Republicans are so great with national security, then why isn't Osama Bin Laden captured? Why has Iraq been such a debacle? The Republicans simply cannot get the job done when it comes to national security, maybe because they are too busy taking free junkets to golf courses in Scotland (Here's a clue to the GOP: Osama Bin Laden is not in Scotland). I'm sure Duke Cunningham claimed he was strong on national security too, though apparently not strong enough to reward defense contracts on merit rather than bribery. As far as I'm concerned, governmental corruption in any form weakens our national security, so for Karl Rove to try to keep a corrupt party in power shows that he would weaken national security rather than strengthen it. If he was serious about national security, he could have used his speech to take on corruption within his own party. He didn't; He's not interested in our national security at all beyond tactically using it as a political ploy to manipulate the voters. This may have worked in 2002, but not in 2006.

Posted by: ErrinF | January 20, 2006 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Hi I wanted to point out that Cassidy Associates hired Jack Abramoff after he left Greenberg Traurig. Why Senator Burns would hold a fundraiser at Cassidy with alll the bad press about him befuddles me.

Posted by: Michael | January 20, 2006 4:07 PM | Report abuse

"He sounded a similar tone on the NSA domestic spying program, calling it necessary to "protect American lives" -- a motive, Rove alleged, that Democrats did not full understand given their "wild and reckless and false charges" on the matter."

It appears that Mr. Rove thinks that trusting in the framer's judgement when they penned the fourth amendment is "wild and reckless".

Wonder what other parts of the Constitution are too much of an inconvenience for the Bush administration to adhere to?

Posted by: Dahagg | January 20, 2006 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The above comments point to a flaw in your "blog." You're writing as a reporter--"just the facts" or rather "just what he said." Those of us who read blogs expect some analysis, some pointing out of the BS as the comments above have done.

Posted by: Cal Gal | January 20, 2006 3:54 PM | Report abuse

I strongly agree with the last post. Bush is one of history's consequential presidents. Unfortunately every consequence of his presidency has been bad.

Posted by: nyrunner | January 20, 2006 3:52 PM | Report abuse

And he praised President George W. Bush as "one of history's consequential presidents."

Sounds okay to me, but I think Rove and I would disagree on what the consequences of Bush's presidency are. If Bush's regime marks the end of the United States as a respected world power that cares about human rights and the rule of law, and the beginning of an imperialistic country that's in a never-ending state of war in which the president is treated like an emperor, then Bush has certainly been consequential.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Wow. What a story - The RNC's Talking Points directly from the guy who writes them every morning (figuratively)...

Posted by: corbett | January 20, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Right on BigB. "Karl Rove and his fellow Bushies" should be the new definition for "Hypocrisy" in Webster's.

Posted by: Timmi | January 20, 2006 3:43 PM | Report abuse

This is the most absurd thing that I have heard out of Rove's mouth.

According to CNN.com

"Reading from a prepared text, the deputy White House chief of staff began with a call for election-year civility -- "Our opponents are our fellow citizens, not our enemies" -- and quickly turned to portraying Democrats as weak on defense."

Election-year civility? If that is not an oxymoron then what is? The man who's scorched earth policies have drug war hero's honorable names in the mud, compared war hero's to OBL, who is the epitome of all that is wrong with America and who vindictively ousted a CIA agent and violated Nat. Security is calling for civility. I say to you Republican's who are you following? If this is your definition of an American leader then you should do some serious soul searching.

Posted by: BigB | January 20, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

order bandit?


Didn't he come up with such ideas as sending people loan applications in the shape of a check, that would give the recipient a 22% interest rate on that $10,000 PRE-APPROVED LOAN?


IS IT NOT A FACT?

that is his claim to fame?

the ability to bait-n-switch the marginally aware?


THAT


is who


CARL ROVER

"the president's dawg"

ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSs.....

Posted by: Isn't Carl Roves previous office that of a mail..... | January 20, 2006 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Rove said Democrats advocated a "cut-and-run" approach..." Absence hasn't changed Rove; lies spill forth every time he opens his mouth.

"We need to learn from our successes -- and from the failure of others," Most Americans would be ecstatic if you'd simply learn from your own failures first.

"one of history's greatest tax-cutting presidents," Cutting taxes isn't hard; nobody likes them. Cutting taxes without becoming THE greatest deficit spender in American history is way beyond this group. Not that they appear to care; lies about wartime spending inevitably to follow.

Posted by: lpdrjk | January 20, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Rove did not highlight "the differences between the two parties' governing philosophies on national security matters, the economy and the judicial branch". He simply set up several straw man arguments then ran away before he could be questioned. Please be more accurate in the future.

Posted by: Toronto | January 20, 2006 2:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company