« Best Morning Ever | Main | How Seriously Should We Take The Petraeus Report? »

August 13, 2007

Comments

The million dollar question is..."Why is he leaving?"

What causes Rove, of all people, to bail on Bush now? He can't be expecting a place on a GOP candidate's payroll (well, maybe he can, but I doubt it).

Was it because his influence had waned? Because things are getting so bad he felt his reputation as a genius was getting tarnished? Because he'd killed all the White House puppies and Cheney refused to buy him new ones? Because the White House has reached levels of crazy even he can't handle?

Karl Rove always struck me as a servant in the old style -- he'd follow his Master into the afterlife (or the political equivilant). 14 years with Bush -- why quit now?

Some possible reasons are juicy and pop-corn worthy. Some are more than a bit scary.

I'd pay good money to read Karl's thoughts on Bush's character...

(He's leaving because everything is crumbling to dust.)

Perle also "resigned" but stayed active and so did many others. While teh Rove was a the WH, he could not completely avoid the spotlights. With him "officially" not around, what evil can he conjure up in secret?

My guess would be that the Prez, who after all actually has all the power in the administration, even if he can delegate it if he wants, has decided to go down some policy road Rove wants nothing to do with.

Shouldn't it be 'So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, adieu'?

I couldn't resist.

(You owe publius a Coke, Hil.)

Brett, did you want to take a stab at what 'policy road' you think that might be?

Far more likely, he's had it up to his keister with Bush's infantile, self-centered grandiosity in the face of the Gi-Mungous pile of "mud" which is the sole meaningful legacy of this failed and pathetic excuse for a leader.

Depending whether Rove or Cheney was the chief puppet master:

If Rove: Rove is leaving because he can see Bush/Cheney are heading for disaster, and he wants out of there. If this is the answer, Rove's name will show up attached to your next President's name in the 2008 campaigns.

If Cheney: Rove is leaving because he knows too much, and Cheney wants him out of the spotlight into comparative obscurity. If this is the case, Rove will not - so long as Cheney is alive - get himself attached to any federal-level candidate for office.

a subpoena barrage from Democrats for whom he is the great white whale.

Somebody at the WSJ slipped a funny past the editors.

Thanks -

G'Kar: I think it's only adieu for one verse.

Count me in for the following: he'd have left soon after the second inaugural -- because of physical and ideological exhaustion -- but couldn't let it look like he'd been driven out. His participation in the 2006 election debacle did more to taint him than any policy going forward ever would.

I'm not sure I know who they're talking about when they say that Democrats think Rove is the architect of policy. He's Andy Griffith of the Mayberry Machiavellis, to be sure, but that doesn't amount to much more than assuring the people with real power that doing what they want to do anyway will help with the base.

I'm not so interested in Rove the man as in Rovism the campaign mode. Pandering to the lesser angels of our nature is great for getting the votes of the basest base, but is hell for governing.

So it is...for some reason, that is the one that stuck in my head.

Isn't this just a cowardly act? Rove will exit now and let 43 take the fall. Rove is responsible as a key instrument of securing power and can hardly divorce himself from culpability. Yet by leaving now, Rove will now get a chance to write a book about how none of this was his fault and how his plans were opposed and shut down at every turn. Meanwhile, he can take a new job with the Romney campaign.

It's hard for me to see how this really helps anything. I mean it would be good to see Rove disgraced of course, but here he is just walking out the door -- while he was still in the White House I sort of held out hope that somehow he could be called to account for the damage he has done. But he's getting out while the getting's good and it seems to me like there will be no moment of accountability for this administration.

I don't like this "Auf Wiedersehen" talk at all. Nie wieder!

Rove's name will show up attached to your next President's name in the 2008 campaigns.

Nah. The next president will be a Dem, no matter what. We could nominate that cat that foretells death and win against that lot.

Does this make it easier or harder to get the e-mails?

I sort of held out hope that somehow he could be called to account for the damage he has done

While gratifying, we're all just going to have to let go of this sort of fantasy, in the near term anyway.

Poor Karl Rove, you would think he was Webb Hubbell or some other run of the mill con.
So many promises unfulfilled, so many dark hints, the sword of scandal always over his head, hopes of frog marching into the paddy wagon, the Great Eight Lawyers Scandal, which will have a longer run then "A Chorus Line" had on Broadway, and most scandalous and unforgivable of all, his success.

Putting aside the bull---- for a moment that's the real sin. Even in leaving there must be some nefarious motive, a set of evasive or immoral reasons. It just can't be he wants a slower pace, some time to himself, the usual reasons. No, the dogs of corruption are nipping at his heels, the house of cards about to fall, shame and defeat his motivation, lawyers on standby.

The man is hated because he won. If the other side wins it has to be an act of evil, if your side wins it's brilliant politics.

Simple? You bet and embarrassingly so.

I wonder if he is leaving with his pockets stuffed with the White House silverware?

johnt: The man is hated because he won.

Isn't it interesting that johnt cannot imagine that Karl Rove is hated for his various disgusting campaign tricks (such as claiming that the McCains adopted daughter was John McCain's illegitimate daughter) or for his actual crimes (direct involvement in the outing of a covert agent). It's projection, I suppose: Republicans like johnt hate Democrats when they win, and love Karl Rove for his dirty tricks: they cannot imagine anyone having any decent motive for hating Rove.

"The man is hated because he won. If the other side wins it has to be an act of evil, if your side wins it's brilliant politics."

Bingo. And there has to be a puppet master, only because when you're absolutely convinced that the other side are morons, you've got to have an evil genius somewhere pulling all the strings to explain why they won anyway.

Rove leaving changes nothing, because he was never remotely as important as Democrats made him out to be. Though I'm sure playing up to that image amused him greatly.

johnt, one need only compare the state of the country before and after his service in the White House to understand why he is hated.

Bingo. And there has to be a puppet master

So, Brett steps up to join johnt in the circle of Republicans who can't imagine people being hated for the evil they do and the crimes they committed....

Gromit: johnt, one need only compare the state of the country before and after his service in the White House to understand why he is hated.

That kind of ignores Bush and Cheney, though. Rove just lied, cheated, and committed crimes to get Bush and Cheney what they wanted: in Aaron Sorkin's phrasing, Rove doesn't want to be Satan: he wants to be the guy who buys cigarettes for Satan.

I personally think my own choice of Youtube tribute was much more apropos.

has decided to go down some policy road Rove wants nothing to do with.

i'd bet it's that Rove wants to do something election-wise that the White House wants nothing to do with.

The man is hated because he won. If the other side wins it has to be an act of evil, if your side wins it's brilliant politics.
Sure, he's hated because be won. There wouldn't be much point if he had lost. More to the point, though, he's hated because of how he won. He's a master of dirty, cheap-shot politics. He's one of those most responsible for the near-total subjugation of actual policy to political consideration in this administration. He oversaw a WH political shop that attempted to use any and all levers of government to partisan advantage. His departure probably won't change anything, at least not immediately, but it's still good to see the back of him.

Larv: He's one of those most responsible for the near-total subjugation of actual policy to political consideration in this administration.

He may be the one who carried out that policy (President first, Party (and donor) interests second, country a long, long way third) but the couple who hired him are most responsible. And they're still in the White House.

Ah, if only our politicians had the rectitude of Chinese businessmen who know how to 'resign' properly when they've disgraced their nation...

My guess would be that the Prez, who after all actually has all the power in the administration, even if he can delegate it if he wants, has decided to go down some policy road Rove wants nothing to do with.

I've been predicting Rove's forced departure in the Sep-Oct time frame, after the Congressional Republicans return from recess. Too many were going to find that they had to buck the White House position on issues in order to win in the general election; Rove is perceived as a threat in terms of his ability to punish them via primary challenges; so Rove has to go. The Congressional Republicans have a credible threat to enforce forcing Rove out: they can simply stop obstructing investigations led by the Democrats. Rove may never be convicted, but those investigations could certainly make his life miserable.

"The man is hated because he won. If the other side wins it has to be an act of evil, if your side wins it's brilliant politics."

No, the man is hated because he committed, or helped commit, acts of evil. And I would never in a million years accuse the current Democrats of indulging in "brilliant politics" even if (and when) they won.

Yeah, but Brett and johnt evidently can't imagine that (for example) Karl Rove could be hated for slandering the family of a Republican candidate. After all, it was "brilliant politics" to lie that the McCains' adopted daughter was McCain's illegimate child since Bush, not McCain, was selected to run against Al Gore, and even though Bush lost, thanks to his family connections, he still got the Presidency, which might not have happened had McCain lost to Gore. Brett presumably thinks that non-Republicans hating Rove for slandering McCain's family would be like Republicans hating Rush Limbaugh for calling Chelsea Clinton a "dog": Brett can't imagine a world where hatred is earned by evil acts, rather than just (as Brett and johnt evidently feel) carefully broadcast across strictly Party lines.

He's thought brilliant, even as he helped destroy the Republican Congressional majority, because admitting that two successive Democratic Presidential candidates were beaten by something short of brilliance, indeed way short of it, is just too much for some people to handle.

Jes, I can indeed "imagine" such a world, thankfully my grasp on reality is such that I'm aware I'm not living in it.

Re the update, I think the odds are pretty good when the topic is Karl Rove. The phrase "lightning rod" is an understatement when it comes to how liberals react to him. Not completely without good reason.

He should've left after Plame, and he REALLY should've left after November 2006. He was good at getting Bush elected president twice, and he was equally good at driving his approval ratings down to 27%. It goes to show that he's fine with electing politicians, and goddawful when it comes to the harder responsibilities of governing. Good riddance.

o please, no apology needed. this is a day for joy and cheer. it was rather random that i was up (see post below for explanation). best morning ever

Geez, you guys act like claiming an American hero adopted his black love child is a bad thing? And how could a guy with a middle name of Christian be evil?

Don't worry Brett, I've got your back!

And that whole "Republicans for clean air" thing? Pure genius!

In August 2005, Bush assigned Rove to oversee the administration's political 'damage control' effort following Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana

Because you know, that's so much more important than Hurricane damage control.

And you've got to admit, his work on the White House Iraq Group was also stellar.

He sure sold alot of folks commenting here on it. I can't imagine why they'd want to diminish his importance..... Really...

The man is hated because he won

Not so. He lost the Congress -- both houses -- in '06, and lots of folks still hate him.

There must be some other reason.

I will agree, however, that he's not the evil genius he's given credit for being. He's not that smart.

Rove's secret is that he does his homework, he works really hard, and he's willing, if not eager, to do things other folks would be ashamed to consider.

Thanks -

Brett: I can indeed "imagine" such a world, thankfully my grasp on reality is such that I'm aware I'm not living in it.

And you wanted to make it clear to those of us who are living in such a world that you're away in your own world, where no one hates anyone for the evil they do but only for the party they belong to. OK.

Charles: It goes to show that he's fine with electing politicians, and goddawful when it comes to the harder responsibilities of governing

Rove wasn't governing. Bush/Cheney was.

I went through a binge of books about organized crime some years ago, and a point that stuck with me was about mob psychology and the limits it imposed on mob capture of legitimate businesses. The Mafia's key guys weren't smarter or tougher or stronger than all their rivals - what most reliably distinguished them was their being willing to resort to violence first, and to keep it up until the other guy capitulated. But it turns out that this is only an asset when your victims don't have recourse to the law. Mob efforts at taking over legit businesses tended to founder because the people running them would simply go to the police, and being first to violence isn't that much of a help in dealing with cops.

Rove is very much like that in the realm of campaigning. He's not a very astute observer in a lot of ways, nor a great strategist. He does have a good sense for useful slime and a complete willingness to get as dirty as it takes to make the other side give up or flail itself into ineffectiveness. It's a kind of moral Ponzi scheme.

Oh, and I will bet a small but useful amount of Powells.com credit :) that Rove will surface by the end of the year on the staff of some Republican campaign for president.

Rove wasn't governing. Bush/Cheney was.

I suspect you are correct. But it's certainly no "slam dunk". Frankly I'm beginning to wonder if anyone was at this point.


"where no one hates anyone for the evil they do but only for the party they belong to."

Oh, I'm sure there are such people, plenty of them. I just don't think they account for most of the people who hate Karl Rove.

I just don't think they account for most of the people who hate Karl Rove.

i dispute the accuracy of your mass mind-reading ability.

i dispute the accuracy of your mass mind-reading ability.

I think Brett thinks that most of the people he knows, would never hate someone who broadcast a lie about a child that she wasn't, in fact, adopted, but the illegitimate child of her adopted father. As Karl Rove did. Brett obviously wouldn't hate someone who would do that to a child to gain something for his employer. Brett admires people who do things like that to children if they succeed in gaining an advantage for his employer.

That Brett believes "most people" are as evil-minded as himself, and "most people", like Brett himself, don't hate the kind of people who slander children, just says that Brett doesn't want to think that anyone could be any better than himself.

It should be evident that my "mass mind reading" capacity is dwarfed by Jes's specific mind reading capacity. I don't know a lot of people who hate Rove, but I don't know anybody who admires him. Rove is, by the ordinary standards we use to judge people outside of politics, scum. (Not uncommon among politicians, which is why the double standard has grown up.) There's an awful lot of scum in this world that Democrats manage to not hate. So it's isn't his scumdom that is the deciding factor in that decision to hate.

It should be evident that my "mass mind reading" capacity is dwarfed by Jes's specific mind reading capacity.

one tu quoque!

hah hah hah hah!

There's an awful lot of scum in this world that Democrats manage to not hate.

two! two tu quoques!

hah hah hah hah!

*lightning* *thunder*

Ooh, I think Brett's now trying for "Oh, actually I'm better than everyone else!" and the vague "The Democrats are just as bad!"

Anything, apparently, but take back his claim to be able to mindread large numbers of people and know that Karl Rove is hated, not because of the vile and criminal things he's done, but because of his party affiliation

I don't know a lot of people who hate Rove, but I don't know anybody who admires him. Rove is, by the ordinary standards we use to judge people outside of politics, scum.

Isn't that enough?

There's an awful lot of scum in this world that Democrats manage to not hate.

Well, that's the problem with so much scum, so little time... (and that's not a partisan shot...that's a built-in part of the human condition).

Strictly speaking, knowing that Karl Rove is hated for evil deeds alone, and not the cause he did them in, also requires mind reading on a mass scale. I'm merely making an inference from who appears to hate him, and who they don't seem to hate.

Brett: Strictly speaking, knowing that Karl Rove is hated for evil deeds alone, and not the cause he did them in, also requires mind reading on a mass scale.

Nope. Just the assumption that most people loathe the kind of person who slanders children. Wherease you evidently think that most people are neutral/indifferent towards a person who claims, publicly, of an adopted child, that she's really an illegitimate daughter.

Rove is just a white-trash goon who provided his services to America's aristocracy.

He did his job well...and got rich.

He is an American success story.

Shouldn't broadcasters be required to give a warning to sensitive listeners before airing an interview of Grover Norquist on the topic of Karl Rove? I've just heard my second of the day.

Catchy title; good enough for a lyric children might sing on their way to bed. Changing metaphors, what farmhouse denizen will now climb the barn ladder at midnight, brush and whitewash in his trotters, to rewrite the people's commandments whenever renewed corruption requires it?

Macbeth had his Lady, whose dam-ned spot would not out, but KKKarl exceeds his fictional antecedents. Perhaps Congress will return from its August recess bearing saplings cut from the woods of Dunsinane and we will be rid of our idiot and his tale.

Who will we replace the counselor to our Moor? The green-eyed monster that mocks him while it feeds on his power?

The reason Rove wants to leave now, before the end of Bush's term, is simple economics: if he waits until Bush leaves office, then shops his book, gets it in print, and starts trying to hawk it, the value will be hugely reduced.

As it is, if he manages to get something out, even if it's got no real meat in it, by early next year, he'll make millions.

CB is right at 6:31.

Well, obviously, Brett is right that Democrats' feelings about Rove arise from his electoral success: I (we) don't spend time thinking about scummy people who don't go about ruining the country, while a scummy person who does so gets my (our)attention. That's a lot different from hating someone just because they won, though, because there are the two elements. I wouldn't spend time hating scum that didn't matter, and I don't hate people who win while being true to my values.

Implying the latter, as Brett does, is intellectually dishonest, in my view. And lazy trollery.

Not to feed, but I'm sincerely curious who exactly Brett thinks you lot* should hate for being Rove-like 'scum' (but don't, thanks to your oh-so-obvious partisan blinders.)

Names, please (although I believe I can guess who's at the top of the list...)

*Since I am not a Democrat (nor even a Yank) I disqualify myself from the mass divination.

And lazy trollery.

Is there any other kind?

It's not just the illegitimate child; who can forget the whispering campaign about one of his opponents, known for his work on children's issues, being a pedophile?

Some linkage for hilzoy's last comment

No: but the "illegitimate child" deliberate rumor-mongering was almost the very first thing I learned about Karl Rove, and it's stuck with me because it wasn't even particularly deadly against John McCain (well, it may have cost him the Presidential nomination, but for McCain, it was on a different level of deadliness to being accused of pedophilia): but it was an abominably cruel thing to do to the girl herself. It was worse than Rush Limbaugh's "joke" about Chelsea Clinton. After hearing he'd done that as a campaign strategy, I'd hate Karl Rove if he was a full-time unpaid volunteer for Amnesty International.

I don't believe Rove is leaving politics.

What's he going to do with himself? He loves what he does - and the GOP is going to need him. All the probable GOP nominees are offering is more Bushism, which the American public is damned sick of. Rovian tactics are their only hope of getting anywhere near the White House.

Whoever the nominee is, Rove will be guiding his strategy, albeit from behind the scenes via one of his proteges.

Well, obviously, Brett is right that Democrats' feelings about Rove arise from his electoral success: I (we) don't spend time thinking about scummy people who don't go about ruining the country, while a scummy person who does so gets my (our)attention.

Well, that's a "duh" type of thing, you know.

Why waste your time on small time scum. More efficient to start at the top rungs and work your way downward.

Charley, I don't think "Charles" is CB. Hasn't he always commented under his full name? (Didn't we do this a while back with "matt"?)

Well, I for one don't have Karl Rove. I do, however, hate what he represents, and that is a country of people that don't really decide who to vote for on the basis of issues and policies, but rather on who does the best job of destroying the credibility of the other person. And an electorate that doesn't demand honesty in the process.

Rove merely represents the end product of years of devolution. Mudslinging is a honored tradition in American politics, but Rove represents it being perfected to its highest form.

He also represents what is wrong with the current Republican party. It is a party that no longer cares about the actual will of the people, and does its best to undermine the real democratic process at work, and I am not talking about fraudulent elections.

It is a party that puts itself and victory above the interests of country or the interests of its citizens, and it will utilize a well-honed propaganda machine, far above anything seen in the past to make peop-le believe they really are voting in their best interest when they aren't.

Sure, the Republicans lost in 2006, but it was closer than it should have been and primarily because of campaigns such as the Roskum-Duckworth campaign in Illinois where Roskum and the Republican party lied about Duckworth's positions every chance they got. Even then, despite it being a heavily Republican district, Roskum barely eked by.

This is Rove's ultimate legacy. And BTWBRett, I have no doubts there are some Dems who would do and have done the same thing, but not anywhere near the scale practiced by the republican Party as it is presently constituted. One need only be reminded that Bush the Elder kicked Rove off his team because Bush the elder still had a sense of integrity and honor, something the younger doesn't and never had.

Hey, everyone should be weighing in on this news so don't worry about the cross-post. But, just for the record, and I mean this with all possible respect: Pub's post was funnier.

I'm merely making an inference from who appears to hate him, and who they don't seem to hate.

OK, I'll bite.

Let's take me for an example. I'm not sure I hate Rove, but I dislike him quite close to the point of despising him. I do, frankly, hate the effect he has had on this nation over the last six years.

I think I come close enough to being a "Rove hater" for purposes of this discussion.

Who is the unnamed party that I "don't seem to hate"?

I claim that there is no left wing / liberal / progressive analogue to Rove in a position remotely similar to his in terms of policy-making influence, either strategically or tactically. Hasn't been, probably since LBJ.

Rahm Emmanuel, maybe? He has some of Rove's gleefully splenetic partisan edge. Carville's got some of that, too.

Dean, of course, is famous for hurting the feelings of Republicans on an almost daily basis.

None of these guys, however, have anything like Rove's fondness for personal smear by innuendo and unattributed rumor.

The Republican party of the current day, however, appears to be full of punks like Rove.

Who is it that I just don't seem to be able to bring myself to hate?

I'm not pushing this point just to get in your face. I'm pushing it because I believe that, objectively, the current crop of Republicans are the biggest crew of creeps, thugs, and criminals that we've seen since the days of Nixon.

The tu quoque line of argument just doesn't cut it with me anymore. These guys aren't like the guys on the other side.

Ball's in your court.

Thanks -

jesurgislac, if you could fill me in on the crimes Rove committed I'd be grateful, not allegations, crimes, not things you don't like, but crimes, the real thing baby. In the category of disgusting things, and everybody has their own taste don't they, A Bob Jones U teacher started the nonsense about McCain adopting a black child, and less the usual blogs, I'm open to a decent proof that Rove charged a McCain child was illegitimate. But do raise the bar on the proof if you please.
For your own good douse the bit about Plame and Rove's "crime", at this point it is sillier than your go down with the ship attitude about the Duke lacrosse players, though I'm sure Mike Nifong appreciated it.

Who else?
Gromit, the "state of the Country" will tell us why he's hated? You mean the country that has had five years of uninterrupted economic growth, no terrorists attacks, continually reducing deficits, and is fighting a war that, are you ready for this, will almost certainly be continued by Democrats in the unhappy event the nation loses it's mind and elects a Democratic President. Why? because they will have no choice, that's why. Refer to Cindy Sheehan for a proper dose of disillusionment, and remember that this particular enemy in this war doesn't give up, no matter what Nancy and Harry are telling you.

Anarch, of course you would never accuse the democrats of dirty politics, a thousand FBI files in the White House a few years back, I better skip the rest of that sorry period, Bob Shrum running an ad in in California with Newt Gingrich's face morphing into a KKK rally, the "what did Bush know and when did he know it" line with it's unmistakable insinuations,oh, and the first great October surprise, the one where Bush #41 traveled overseas to make sure the American hostages weren't released from Iran,etc and so on. Maybe you should do some accusing.

There's evil out there alright and some of it is right under your noses, on your side of the aisle. But still, it was Rove's success that grated most. Sorry about that.

johnt, I stand corrected. Thank god Rove and his buddies were there to clean up the godawful mess left behind by the nitwits who were running the country from 2001 to 2002. And they only destabilized one volatile world region and let one American city be nearly destroyed in the process!

...fighting a war that, are you ready for this, will almost certainly be continued by Democrats in the unhappy event the nation loses it's mind and elects a Democratic President. Why? because they will have no choice, that's why.

Why would they have no choice? If they let the iraqi government tell us to go away, then nobody would blame them for withdrawing.

Would they have no choice but to prevent the iraqi government from doing that? How come?

...the first great October surprise, the one where Bush #41 traveled overseas to make sure the American hostages weren't released from Iran

It sounds like you're insinuating that didn't happen. Do you have some reason to doubt it?

johnt: if you could fill me in on the crimes Rove committed I'd be grateful, not allegations, crimes, not things you don't like, but crimes, the real thing baby.

Honeychild, betraying the identity of a covert CIA agent is a crime, the real thing, infant.

johnt: Anarch, of course you would never accuse the democrats of dirty politics...

Perhaps I was unclear. When I said this:

Anarch: And I would never in a million years accuse the current Democrats of indulging in "brilliant politics"...

I didn't mean I'd never accuse the Democrats of dirty politics, I meant I'd never accuse them of brilliance. The quotes were misleading, and for that I apologize.

Second: note the key word "current". The thousand FBI files meme isn't contemporary, and the allegation is false anyway -- in fact, I more or less debunked it here on ObWi and I'm fairly sure I wasn't the only one -- and neither were the allegations towards Bush 41.

But still, it was Rove's success that grated most. Sorry about that.

Well, yes. He's slime and he's responsible for giving us one of the worst presidents in American history. Sorry about that.

no terrorists attacks

Uh, did we ever catch those responsible for the anthrax attacks? And weren't there some snipers killing people in the metro DC area?

Oh, that's right: Terrorist = MOOOOOOOOSLIM

johnt: "five years of uninterrupted economic growth"
- You mean, five years of an uninterrupted, massive transferal of wealth from the middle class to the top one half of one percent; with most of this 'growth' pathetically lagging in terms of job production and with real wages falling steadily; 'growth' which for the most part has been essentially flatined in comparison to any other period in American history that's not an outright recession? You mean that 'growth'?

"no terrorists attacks,"
- Great! You mean, of course, that after allowing the most deadly, warned of, and foreseeable terrorist attack on American soil, EVER, Bushie and pals have been fortunate enough (despite the openly stated desire to the contrary espoused by numerous Republicans) to have not been faced with a similar challenge from a handful of starving cave dwellers who, by the way, are STILL running around SIX YEARS LATER because BushCo had other priorities? You mean those terrorists attacks?

"continually reducing deficits"
- I'm sorry, you're a f***ing idiot.

"and is fighting a war that, are you ready for this, will almost certainly be continued by Democrats in the unhappy event the nation loses it's mind and elects a Democratic President. Why? because they will have no choice, that's why."
- Relentlessly stupid, aren't you? Rest assured, this country has found its mind (at least, 70% has) and it will be exercising said mind rationally in 2008 as Democrats resume the Presidency and gain another dozen seats in the House and two or three in the Senate. We will clean up your mess, turd breath. That's what adults do when jackassed children kick the barn down. We will restore respect and decency to our political process; we will defuse (as much as is possible) the massive growth in terrorist activity the Republicant's have created vis-a-vis Iraq; we will end this war, pronto, and manage the aftermath as best as competent, rational adults can. You go back to your Tinkertoys, junior. We'll let you know when dinner's ready.

Jeeze. I missed all the fun. ;)

I haven’t read all the reaction yet. The one thing that strikes me so far is that the triumphal reaction on the left seems a little over done. I mean, he is leaving exactly on his own terms, it’s hardly the long dreamed of and fervently wished for “frog march” from the WH. So now he’ll make millions writing his memoirs and he’ll be pulling strings from behind the scenes in the next election.

At least before he was an obvious target – but now you won’t know for sure. He’ll be suspected of being behind every turn of the coming election but he’ll be like “Who me? I’m just chillin’ here in TX writing my book.” This actually frees him from what few constraints he may have felt as a public figure. Now he can really let loose. I’ll bet that his fingerprints will be all over the election but no one will ever be able to prove it. He was the boogie man right in front of you before, now he’s the boogie man hiding in the closet. ;)


Phil: And weren't there some snipers killing people in the metro DC area?
Oh, that's right: Terrorist = MOOOOOOOOSLIM

Huh? The DC snipers were Muslim… On the anthrax attacks – yeah, who knows as it remains unsolved despite the FBI’s best efforts… not exactly an argument for treating terrorism as a crime fighting issue.


Conrad's Ghost: I'm sorry, you're a f***ing idiot… Relentlessly stupid, aren't you?

Unless there has been an update to the posting rules in the last few days that is way out of line.

OCSteve, the DC snipers were Muslims, but their crimes were not really " Muslim terrorism" as most people probably conceive of it. They were more like Charles Whitman at the time. And they were, of course, caught via law enforcement rather than having the Guard invade DC.

As for the anthrax attacks, what would you consider a more appropriate response? A War On Spores? Invade the CDC?

Hey, Conrad's Ghost, I got mad too, but posting rules, and all.
Let me try -
JohnT, claiming that the Republicans have steadily reduced the deficit is a....rather remarkable claim. What are you basing this on?
DItto for the 'uninterrupted financial growth.'

claiming that the Republicans have steadily reduced the deficit is a....rather remarkable claim.

here's what the RNC claimed in their 2004 platform document:

    Much more importantly, because the President and Congress enacted pro-growth
    economic policies, the deficit is headed strongly in the right direction. Next year’s projected deficit, at 2.7 percent of GDP, would be smaller than those in 14 of the last 25 years. As Republicans in Congress work with the President to restrain spending and strengthen economic growth, the federal deficit will fall to 1.5 percent of the nation’s economic output in 2009 – well below the 2.2 percent average of the last 40 years.

projection and claims based on hope: the fiscal tools of the future!

OCSteve: The one thing that strikes me so far is that the triumphal reaction on the left seems a little over done.

A lot overdone. As others have pointed out already. ;-) But yeah: Karl Rove has probably gone off to work for the next President* - and has probably been asked not to say that he's left to go work on a Republican campaign because the chosen candidate probably doesn't want to look like Bush/Cheney's handpicked successor.

*I'm presuming that the 2008 elections will be rigged, just as the last two were.

Phil: what would you consider a more appropriate response?

Yeah retract that – it’s a conversation for another time and I don’t want to derail. It was shorthand for ‘only domestic law enforcement’ or similar.

Kids, it's time for your milk and cookies and perhaps a sedative or two.
For once I hardly know where to begin with the sea of crap hovering above. I'll just handle a few and let the trained nurses tend to your needs.

Gromit, you need a lot more than correction.
Suffice to say you blame not islamic murderers for destabilization but Republicans. And you,as well as the rest of the inmates here, talk about hate? The word barely scratches the surface. Maybe you can bring yourself to hate islamic throat cutters as much as the GOP, not much of a start but something. Good luck buddy.

j thomas, how are things on the planet Pluto? Do they have Octobers back home?
J old bean, interesting though it is that the accused, Bush#41, should have to prove his innocence rather then the accusers prove his guilt, liberal justice?, the fact is the bogus and vicious charge was dropped after about a week. Things like travel records, recorded appearances, people who knew where he was, little things like that. Coincidentally the Democratic mud pie thrower who started this was named Gary Sick, who having served his task was quickly relegated to obscurity, actually the Foreign Relations Council which is the same thing.
Don't you love the name?

Anarch, thanks for the clarification, a small thing but appreciated.
As to your use of the word "contemporary", you will note that first that doesn't constitute an excuse, second, that much of what Rove is hated for is hardly contemporary either. If I understand your comment on the FBI files, "false allegation", then the FBI agents who testified about their delivery and the notation system used were apparently confused beyond hope. As were the Congressional members, Republican and Democratic who sat in on the hearings.
On a happy note however a couple of zealous Dems on the committee did attempt to bring those FBI agents on trumped up charges of one sort or another.
Perhaps I misunderstand you on this but in any case my last post. The October Surprise thing was quite real, nothing to dispute there.

jesurgislac, I saved the worst, you, for last, sweet baby, snookums little darlin' cutie pie, daddy's little,what?
Time wasted is never recovered, so either way, to put you out of your misery or extend it, but not to waste any more of what's precious to me, the following; I put certain questions to you, I did not receive answers. I must therefore consider the possibility that you suffer from, what at this distance is, an unknown but serious malady. The possibility of a congenital hysteria is not to be discounted but who am I to say for sure.

Sweetheart, love, Dear, If outing a CIA agent is a crime and Rove committed it, why then was not even Libby convicted of it, or Dick Armitage, the outer? Does your solicitude for classified status extend to all those juicy things that get you so excited in the morning while sipping your gruel? The things that the Times routinely prints that send shivers up your bony and probably lacerated back, you know.

Sweet thing, Honey, Babycakes, it at least helps your case if not your state of mind if someone was CHARGED with the crime, who needs guilty after trial? But at least a charge, legal, you know, like in a court of law.

Reread my original post lover, sweet dreams.

And someone please tell Conrads's Ghost that he can take his head out of the toilet bowl now. Much as he hates being away from home !

mmm pie.

johnt: I put certain questions to you, I did not receive answers.

That's right, duckie: because I'm not in the habit of responding to ickle-pickle mannie-poos who call me condescending names.

I'm sorry, I nodded off there for a moment, but how, again, did the Republicans steadily shrink the deficit? And progressively increase the economy?

I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not sure that I hate Karl Rove, but I probably do. In any case, he helped, in a big way, to put and keep GWB in office. I'm very confident that history will conclude, as I now do, that he is one of the worst presidents this country has ever had. That's enough for me. There are trees, and there are forests.

My G-d, johnt is right! If you can't prove it in a court of law, there can't have been a crime! This is a great relief to me, as I have long thought that the Murder, Incorporated people got a bad rap, and now johnt stands with me in my belief that all of those concrete swimming cases can be considered accidental.

"I stand on my record. 96 arrests -- NO CONVICTIONS" -- Big Julie.

johnt: Gromit, you need a lot more than correction.
Suffice to say you blame not islamic murderers for destabilization but Republicans. And you,as well as the rest of the inmates here, talk about hate? The word barely scratches the surface. Maybe you can bring yourself to hate islamic throat cutters as much as the GOP, not much of a start but something. Good luck buddy.

Oh, yeah, that's right. The terrorists forced the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, throwing what was an oppressive but reasonably stable country into outright chaos, unleashing a thousand mini-Saddams to apply power tools to the heads of folks who happen to be of the wrong religious persuasion (to say nothing of the damage we have, ourselves, directly caused). And hey, you forgot to berate me for criticizing our elected officials for the piss-poor response to Katrina, and not the hurricane for wrecking the city in the first place. I'm emboldening the hurricanes with my blame-America-first attitude, and you are standing idly by. Where is your patriotism, sir?

Trilobite:

Guys and dolls?

aimai

Maybe you can bring yourself to hate islamic throat cutters as much as the GOP, not much of a start but something.

God, do I hate this crap. Unless those throat cutters are likely to take over the reins of our government, the two just aren't remotely comparable. The GOP has a much greater ability to actually affect my life and country, so it makes sense to pay more attention to them. Ayman al-Zawahiri is a much, much worse human being than Karl Rove, but I'm considerably more worried about what Rove and his ideological compatriots might do to my country than I am about Zawahiri and his.

Larv, the point apparently is that we shouldn't expect our government to react to our protests about what it's doing (in the words of Our Leader, "Who cares what you think?") any more than we would expect the terrorists to do so, so why complain?

Wait, are you guys saying I shouldn't have written-in "Ayman al-Zawahiri" for President during the last election? In my defense, given that I hate Islamic throat-cutters less than I hate Republicans, I was all like "hey, man, lesser of two evils".

I apologize for my profanity earlier. I was out of line, and it won't happen again.

Some Republicans are pro-torture, so the moral distinction between those particular Republicans and Al Qaeda can be exaggerated. I don't know where Rove stands on torture, but if he's opposed he must be suffering internal agonies of conscience, given who he's been working for.

I guess, however, slightly more on topic, that relentlessly amoral, whoreson apologists for power like johnt will always do their best work on their knees servicing kindred spirits such as Rove. If nothing else, K. Rove's morally and ethically bankrupt endeavors have contributed significantly to the creation of types such as johnt, where the discourse of gainsaying, denial, and ridiculous falsehoods (read: lies) has carved itself a place in our political dialogue. So rant on, johnt, and show the world how willful ignorance guarantees wild overestimation of one's true value and abilities. Just like your hero.

If anyone with keys to this jalopy is reading, johnt's 11:38am is (IMHO) well over the line (much like everything else he's contributed to the comment threads during his sporadic visits to ObWi). He is treating the posting rules like toilet paper and folks are understandably getting riled up as a result of the (likely deliberate) provocation.

YMMV.

mattt,

Not disagreeing with you, but johnt is hardly the only person way over the line here.

I really, really, really hate a guy named Tribhuvan V. Nadelefsky at the little blue house five houses down from the water tank in north east zemindari province of east-wherever-the-blankty blank istan. I hear he's a terrible person and if he could afford the donkey ride to the end of the road and the bus ticket five hundred miles to the nearest airport and the air fare which is approximately ten million times his annual salary he would utterly and permanently cut my liberal throat. My hating him is doing wonders for his chances of actually doing that. IN fact my hating him is the *only thing* that prevents him from doing so.

So why did we need to give President Bush and Alberto Gonszales all that extra-legal power to spy on us and freeze our assets and kidnap, torture, and imprison us? Wouldn't it be better if we just, you know, hated all the right people and liked all the GOP and then we could all go back to having our old rights 'n stuff?

Anyway, I'm doing my part. I've got only enough hate in me for one mooslim guy and I've picked Tribhuvan V. nadelofsky. You guys do your best with the rest of 'em.

aimai

Fair enough, dan. I was considering it in historical context, based on previous contributions.

But your point stands.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad