Bye Bye Baby! -- Karl Rove resigns
- Thread starter indra
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Lila64
Blue Crack Distributor
BonosSaint
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,566
^ Above was perfect.
dazzlingamy
Refugee
See the rats scurrying away from the sinking ship...
No. See the rat scurrying away from the still very much seaworthy ship--it has the sheeplike American people down in the scuppers bailing it out with buckets every time our stupid Congress keeps it afloat, supporting the captain's insane course tack.
Except he isn't scurrying. He's been cut a sweet deal, given means to float on a little raft to that island in the sun.
Okay, since it's a rat metaphor I can't make the comparison any longer and will have to speak in plain language.
Rove has joined Harriet Myers and others in agreeing to leave after he and the rest of Team Bush have mutually agreed that the Dems aren't backing down on Gonzo at least (whatever new powers they've just given him) and someday his sorry butt MAY get tossed into court after all. The charges? Where do we start? This #*$**$ has had his sticky fingers in EVERY piece of Bush pie since he helped him defeat Ann Richards in Texas. At least that was a fair election, in terms of the voting process.
I wonder, too, if Newsweek's damning new expose (by conservative pol Jonathan Alter no less!) on the proposed new California Proposition that would radically alter that state's electoral policy to split the Electoral Vote tally on a county-by-county basis instead of the winner getting all 55 Electoral votes (and this ONLY for Cali, and NO OTHER STATE) has anything to do with this? This proposal is blatantly unconstitutional, but it's no different than the sneaky tactics Der Rovester tried in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in '04. He probably didn't count on a huge media expose of this so early, nor by a conservative publication.
The scary thought is, the Dems will now take this as a sign that they have nothing more to fear from him, Election-wise. Nothing could be further from the truth, since he is now freed to run the Repub 2008 Campaign with a free "legal" hand, with little chance of interference or prosecution, since he'll be assumed to be buried on the ranch. Honestly: do you really REALLY think Team Decider is putting this guy on the shelf? Has he been reduced to "heckuva job" status yet? I don't think so. He'll "retire" --and Cheney is a typical VP.
This crap about thinking a yr or so he'd resign is just that, utter crap. Like the fact that Rummy was always going to resign, he just didn't make the right decision by resigning before November '06 and not before.
RIGHT. Like Rumsfeld would have resigned had the Repubs held Congress.
The worst thing now for Democrats would be if they get a false sense of confidence by thinking he's out of the way. Au contraire. This slimy bastard is now ten times more dangerous than ever before, IF that is possible.
EDIT: Der Rupster's WSJ. Now that he is the editor in chief of this paper I will NEVER trust it now. Fox News's chief Roger Ailes (remember him?), Murdoch, et al support Guliani. Any native New Yorker (or even Upstater with friends or reltives in NYC who lived under Guliani and REALLY knows him and isn't swayed by the starry-eyed crap he feeds the media aobut 9/11) would see what this says about them. In NYC Guliani is a pariah. And the reasons why he is a pariah are the ones he is supported by them for.
Why am I bringing up Guliani? Because he reportedly had some of Rove's staff working on his campaign....see the connection now?
Except he isn't scurrying. He's been cut a sweet deal, given means to float on a little raft to that island in the sun.
Okay, since it's a rat metaphor I can't make the comparison any longer and will have to speak in plain language.
Rove has joined Harriet Myers and others in agreeing to leave after he and the rest of Team Bush have mutually agreed that the Dems aren't backing down on Gonzo at least (whatever new powers they've just given him) and someday his sorry butt MAY get tossed into court after all. The charges? Where do we start? This #*$**$ has had his sticky fingers in EVERY piece of Bush pie since he helped him defeat Ann Richards in Texas. At least that was a fair election, in terms of the voting process.
I wonder, too, if Newsweek's damning new expose (by conservative pol Jonathan Alter no less!) on the proposed new California Proposition that would radically alter that state's electoral policy to split the Electoral Vote tally on a county-by-county basis instead of the winner getting all 55 Electoral votes (and this ONLY for Cali, and NO OTHER STATE) has anything to do with this? This proposal is blatantly unconstitutional, but it's no different than the sneaky tactics Der Rovester tried in Florida in 2000 or Ohio in '04. He probably didn't count on a huge media expose of this so early, nor by a conservative publication.
The scary thought is, the Dems will now take this as a sign that they have nothing more to fear from him, Election-wise. Nothing could be further from the truth, since he is now freed to run the Repub 2008 Campaign with a free "legal" hand, with little chance of interference or prosecution, since he'll be assumed to be buried on the ranch. Honestly: do you really REALLY think Team Decider is putting this guy on the shelf? Has he been reduced to "heckuva job" status yet? I don't think so. He'll "retire" --and Cheney is a typical VP.
This crap about thinking a yr or so he'd resign is just that, utter crap. Like the fact that Rummy was always going to resign, he just didn't make the right decision by resigning before November '06 and not before.
RIGHT. Like Rumsfeld would have resigned had the Repubs held Congress.
The worst thing now for Democrats would be if they get a false sense of confidence by thinking he's out of the way. Au contraire. This slimy bastard is now ten times more dangerous than ever before, IF that is possible.
EDIT: Der Rupster's WSJ. Now that he is the editor in chief of this paper I will NEVER trust it now. Fox News's chief Roger Ailes (remember him?), Murdoch, et al support Guliani. Any native New Yorker (or even Upstater with friends or reltives in NYC who lived under Guliani and REALLY knows him and isn't swayed by the starry-eyed crap he feeds the media aobut 9/11) would see what this says about them. In NYC Guliani is a pariah. And the reasons why he is a pariah are the ones he is supported by them for.
Why am I bringing up Guliani? Because he reportedly had some of Rove's staff working on his campaign....see the connection now?
Last edited:
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
melon said:
Can we add asshole to the list of choices?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
about 7 years too late...
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
I know Rove will still have influence but...
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
He was Bush's brain, so does that mean Bush no longer has a brain?
DILETTANTE
The Fly
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2005
- Messages
- 160
Well, at least Bush still has his heart (Cheney).
U2FanPeter
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Did he get a record contract for his aspiring rap career?
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
U2FanPeter said:
omg i hope so. that explains the sudden resignation.Golightly Grrl
Refugee
U2FanPeter said:
Ha, ha, I nearly choked on my water.
I'd say good riddance, but I'm afraid he's still going to have an influence on the administration.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
melon said:
I don't think they die either... Not without holy water or cutting off their head or something...
redhotswami
Blue Crack Addict
elevated_u2_fan said:
I don't think they die either... Not without holy water or cutting off their head or something...
actually i think it was with the silver alien probe into the base of the neck.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Rove is working for Giuliani?
deep
Blue Crack Addict
verte76 said:
deep
Blue Crack Addict
just some random thoughts
Rove is now in a better position to protect Bush / Cheney
and vice versa
Rove is now in a better position to protect Bush / Cheney
and vice versa
LarryMullen's POPAngel
Blue Crack Distributor
elevated_u2_fan said:
I don't think they die either... Not without holy water or cutting off their head or something...
Rove is not working directly for Guliani; he has some of his staff "advising" him. You know how that goes.
What I am starting to wonder now is this: whenever Team Bush has some great big colassal story they'd like to see get as little media attention as possible, they have it attended to on specific news days. Friday's, to be more precise, the slowest news media cycle of the week. They had Ari Fleischer resign on a Monday; the "best" news day of the week--it later transpired that that's the day news of the Valerie Plame affair first broke. Monday is the time for "big" stories, the kind you want attention drawn to, b/c they have the maximum time in the media to be discussed; if a big enough story it could go on most of the week. Last week, the wiretapping bill was rushed through the House and signed into law on a Friday, when the media cycle skipped into the weekend. In the late 90's, Ken Starr had Matt Drudge "break" the Monica Lewinsky story on the very day that Clinton announced he had finally balanced the budget.
This isn't anything new; Presidents--and their enemies--have been doing this since the dawn of the modern media age and before. So you have to wonder, knowing these guys esp, if there's a big story about to break that they're trying to cover up or want no attention to be drawn to.
Lots of theories are flying over the blogosphere right now. Mine is that Rove has his people working on the Guliani campaign, and a Federal judge has ordered the release of documents and camera footage that point a damning finger at Da Mayor's role in brutally suppressing peaceful demonstrators at the 2004 RNC in NYC. Others specdulate that really damanging stuff is about to come from Fitzgerald's office over Gonzo, or the mrkets are aobut to melt down, or there was a Cheney-Rove power struggle over bombing Iran (Rove showing some sense for once) and Rove lost. Who knows. But thankfully there are those trying to dig out the truth,and they'll let others know, even if the media do not. Thank God for the Net.
What I am starting to wonder now is this: whenever Team Bush has some great big colassal story they'd like to see get as little media attention as possible, they have it attended to on specific news days. Friday's, to be more precise, the slowest news media cycle of the week. They had Ari Fleischer resign on a Monday; the "best" news day of the week--it later transpired that that's the day news of the Valerie Plame affair first broke. Monday is the time for "big" stories, the kind you want attention drawn to, b/c they have the maximum time in the media to be discussed; if a big enough story it could go on most of the week. Last week, the wiretapping bill was rushed through the House and signed into law on a Friday, when the media cycle skipped into the weekend. In the late 90's, Ken Starr had Matt Drudge "break" the Monica Lewinsky story on the very day that Clinton announced he had finally balanced the budget.
This isn't anything new; Presidents--and their enemies--have been doing this since the dawn of the modern media age and before. So you have to wonder, knowing these guys esp, if there's a big story about to break that they're trying to cover up or want no attention to be drawn to.
Lots of theories are flying over the blogosphere right now. Mine is that Rove has his people working on the Guliani campaign, and a Federal judge has ordered the release of documents and camera footage that point a damning finger at Da Mayor's role in brutally suppressing peaceful demonstrators at the 2004 RNC in NYC. Others specdulate that really damanging stuff is about to come from Fitzgerald's office over Gonzo, or the mrkets are aobut to melt down, or there was a Cheney-Rove power struggle over bombing Iran (Rove showing some sense for once) and Rove lost. Who knows. But thankfully there are those trying to dig out the truth,and they'll let others know, even if the media do not. Thank God for the Net.
Varitek
Blue Crack Addict
I was so excited about this and then I realized he would just have more time to commit to Electioneering '08.
Slipstream
Refugee
Albeit years late but....another bites the dust!
Is it just me, or is Giuliani becoming more detestable as the months go on?
Is it just me, or is Giuliani becoming more detestable as the months go on?
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
How Karl Rove lost a generation of Republicans
By James Carville
Published: August 14 2007
There is an old joke that campaign veterans toss around war rooms, bars and BS sessions. We say there are people who have worked in campaigns who say that they have lost some – and we call those folks operatives, managers, strategists, consultants; and then there are people who work in campaigns and say that they have never lost, and we call them liars.
The joke reflects an obsession with winning as the real benchmark of success in politics. By that measure, Karl Rove’s career has to be deemed a success. He built the Republican party of Texas into one of the most powerful state parties in America.
Nationally he has pulled off some of the most unexpected and impressive victories of modern political history. (I will not be debating the 2000 election for the purposes of this article, but I also will not be crediting him with it, so let us just move on to the next cycle.)
Mr Rove picked up seats in what was an almost historically impossible context in 2002. Then in 2004, he engineered one of the most remarkable feats in American politics. He got Americans to re-elect a president who they really did not want to re-elect. Even the Republican defeat in 2006 was predictable and well within the range of historical norms so, by this sport’s standard of winning and losing, there is still no black mark on Rove’s record.
If we concluded our analysis in 2007 and confined our judgment merely to Mr Rove’s immediate electoral record, we would have no choice but to judge him a spectacular success. There is no doubt that Mr Rove won elections. He has perhaps one of the most remarkable win-percentages in modern American politics.
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.
It is not just Democracy Corps that has found this. A host of new polls and surveys over the course of the past few months has served as a harbinger of a rocky 2008 election for Republicans.
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.
Mr Rove’s famous electoral strategy – focusing on the Republican base first – is also largely responsible for a shift in international public opinion against the US. It would not be fair to blame Mr Rove for the Iraq war. But it is clearly fair to blame his strategy for the Terry Schiavo fiasco and the Republicans’ adherence to the policies and doctrines of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson. The world and now most of the US are contemptuous of the theocratic underpinnings of the policy Mr Rove ushered into government.
There is also a distinction to be made between Karl Rove the political strategist and Karl Rove the government official. Mr Rove was not just an operative sitting at the Republican National Committee and scheming. He had a West Wing office. This distinguishes him from other political operatives, whose roles were outside the White House doing scheduling, advance work and presentation. They were not firing and hiring or shaping national security policy.
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”.
When it comes to judging Mr Rove’s political career, I am reminded of Chinese premier Zhou Enlai’s meeting with Henry Kissinger in the 1970s, when Mr Kissinger asked, “What do you think of the French Revolution?” Zhou replied: “It’s too soon to tell.”
If the trends hold, the one thing that we can be sure of is that Mr Rove’s political grave will receive no lack of irrigation from future Republicans.
The writer is an international political consultant, founder of Democracy Corps, and is working on a new book whose tentative title is The Lost Generation: How the Democrats can Capitalize on the Current Problems of the Republican Party. He was chief strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign
By James Carville
Published: August 14 2007
There is an old joke that campaign veterans toss around war rooms, bars and BS sessions. We say there are people who have worked in campaigns who say that they have lost some – and we call those folks operatives, managers, strategists, consultants; and then there are people who work in campaigns and say that they have never lost, and we call them liars.
The joke reflects an obsession with winning as the real benchmark of success in politics. By that measure, Karl Rove’s career has to be deemed a success. He built the Republican party of Texas into one of the most powerful state parties in America.
Nationally he has pulled off some of the most unexpected and impressive victories of modern political history. (I will not be debating the 2000 election for the purposes of this article, but I also will not be crediting him with it, so let us just move on to the next cycle.)
Mr Rove picked up seats in what was an almost historically impossible context in 2002. Then in 2004, he engineered one of the most remarkable feats in American politics. He got Americans to re-elect a president who they really did not want to re-elect. Even the Republican defeat in 2006 was predictable and well within the range of historical norms so, by this sport’s standard of winning and losing, there is still no black mark on Rove’s record.
If we concluded our analysis in 2007 and confined our judgment merely to Mr Rove’s immediate electoral record, we would have no choice but to judge him a spectacular success. There is no doubt that Mr Rove won elections. He has perhaps one of the most remarkable win-percentages in modern American politics.
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.
It is not just Democracy Corps that has found this. A host of new polls and surveys over the course of the past few months has served as a harbinger of a rocky 2008 election for Republicans.
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.
Mr Rove’s famous electoral strategy – focusing on the Republican base first – is also largely responsible for a shift in international public opinion against the US. It would not be fair to blame Mr Rove for the Iraq war. But it is clearly fair to blame his strategy for the Terry Schiavo fiasco and the Republicans’ adherence to the policies and doctrines of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson. The world and now most of the US are contemptuous of the theocratic underpinnings of the policy Mr Rove ushered into government.
There is also a distinction to be made between Karl Rove the political strategist and Karl Rove the government official. Mr Rove was not just an operative sitting at the Republican National Committee and scheming. He had a West Wing office. This distinguishes him from other political operatives, whose roles were outside the White House doing scheduling, advance work and presentation. They were not firing and hiring or shaping national security policy.
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”.
When it comes to judging Mr Rove’s political career, I am reminded of Chinese premier Zhou Enlai’s meeting with Henry Kissinger in the 1970s, when Mr Kissinger asked, “What do you think of the French Revolution?” Zhou replied: “It’s too soon to tell.”
If the trends hold, the one thing that we can be sure of is that Mr Rove’s political grave will receive no lack of irrigation from future Republicans.
The writer is an international political consultant, founder of Democracy Corps, and is working on a new book whose tentative title is The Lost Generation: How the Democrats can Capitalize on the Current Problems of the Republican Party. He was chief strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
"effete"? Interesting word choice. If he outsmarts people well frankly that's frightening.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/15/rove-bushs-critics-are-snobs-who-hate-his-common-sense/
In his interview with Rush Limbaugh this afternoon, Karl Rove claimed that the people criticizing Bush are “sort of elite, effete snobs who can’t hold a candle to this guy. What they don’t like about him is that he is common sense, that he is Middle America.” Limbaugh suggest that Bush critics are frustrated the the President “outsmarts ‘em.” Rove argued Bush is far more intelligent than people give him credit for, and is “one of the best-read people I’ve ever met” whose “passion is history.”
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
MrsSpringsteen said:
oh
yeah
right
to all of it
BoMac
Self-righteous bullshitter
MrsSpringsteen said:
X 1,00000000000000000000000000
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
To be fair, it may be the Karl doesn't get out much.
Similar threads
