Yes, I would agree Rove is loyal to the Republican party...

• much too important to go unread - sim
  • Let's wait and see how than relates in votes.... - sam
  • Rove and McCain - sim
    • Rove in politics - oya
      • Yes, I would agree Rove is loyal to the Republican party... - sam
    • I am always skeptical of a post that says... - sam

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

...because Obama got elected.  He got elected because the republican party is in disarray.  You got cause and effect reversed.  In this era of political correctness the republican party has been trying to become more *moderate*  and it cost them this election.  By trying to water down the conservative message to *dem lite* they have lost their conservative base. 

I voted, not for McCain, but for Palin and against Obama/Biden.  The idea that Palin would be *one heartbeat away from the presidency* was a plus in my book.  She was the only candidate who made any sense to me.  Did not mince words.  Said what she meant, meant what she said.  Ya' betcha!  No question about her stance on anything. 

Whatever your feelings about the pro/anti-abortion issue, there is no question how Palin felt about it.  She wasn't just against abortion until she and/or her daughter could've used one.  And her own diluted republican party did a number on her, trying to marginalize her so she would be in a poor position to run in four years.

Meanwhile, if Obama's daughter had an unwanted pregnancy he would not want her *punished with a baby.*  What an odd way to put that!  

And please, just to head off the backlash over the abortion issue, that is certainly not the criterion by which I cast my vote, just an example of a candidate taking a stand - even an unpopular one - and sticking to it. 

They wanted to polish her up, dress her in designer duds, and make her into what they wanted her to be.  There were probably stylists who brought clothes to her.  I am sure Sarah Palin did not take time out of the campaign to go shopping at Saks.  Clothing was brought to her, she tried on outfits, decisions were made, and that was that.  She probably have very little to do with what was spent. 

Now, those behind the scenes want to cry foul.  It's just stupid and petty. 

Sarah Palin WAS treated unfairly.  She was thrown into a shark tank.  Her life will never be the same.  It sucks and the Rep. Party needs to quit laying the blame on her for their loss.  Shoulder some responsibility themselves.  McCain was/is a seasoned politician as many Reps were behind the seens.  EVERYONE has done nothing spout how inexperienced and ill-equiped Sarah Palin was and now they want to say it's her fault?!?!!?!?  I find that incredibly cowardly!  She's absolutely right! 

The republicans should be looking at the mess their party is in and figure out what went wrong and how they can rebuild.  Leave Sarah alone!

I believe the term you are really using is not "arrogant", but "uppity." 

    Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.

    He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.

    He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.

    He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.

    And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:

    "We will drill..."

    "We'll drill..."

    "More drilling..."

    McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.

    But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.

http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican

So, Karl Rove is the one who outed Ms. Wilson.  He should be put in prison for years or better yet, let the people have him, let us tar and feather him..Definitely he needs to be brought up on charges.

Some of these people could actually witness Rove with a gun in his hand SHOOTING this lady and still defend his actions.  Their president can do no wrong, and whatever you do, do NOT confuse them with FACTS.  They are a scary bunch.

    Sunday 28 August 2005

Negative attacks have often been at the center of Karl Rove’s strategies. (Photo: Reuters)

    After all, Plame's identity was revealed in a Robert Novak column on July 14, 2003, just eight days after her husband, Joseph Wilson, had embarrassed Bush over his Iraq war rationale. And Rove had talked with Novak on July 9.

    As John Roberts, the Supreme Court nominee and federal appeals court judge, wrote last month in another context, the fact that sometimes dogs do eat homework is no reason to ignore more-logical explanations.

    Rove's record has been consistent. Over 35 years, he has been a master of dirty tricks, divisiveness, innuendo, manipulation, character assassination, and roiling partisanship.

    He started early. In 1970, when he was 19 and active as a college Republican -- though he didn't graduate from college -- Rove pretended to volunteer for a Democratic candidate in Illinois, stole some campaign stationery, and used it to disrupt a campaign event. Later, in Texas, he gave testimony in court that was embarrassing to an opponent of one of Rove's clients, even though it was not true, according to the book Bush's Brain, by two veteran Texas newsmen, James Moore and Wayne Slater.

    Negative attacks have often been the center of Rove's strategies. In a race between Texas Governor Mark White and his Republican opponent, Bill Clements, Rove wrote in a memo: Anti-White messages are more important than positive Clements messages.

    Often Rove has skated on the edge of being identified with certainty as the author of dirty tricks. In 1986, the discovery of a planted listening device in Rove's own office was widely publicized, damaging the Democrats. Many suspect that the source was Rove himself. This was never proven, but Moore and Slater say, Karl Rove remains a prime suspect. In 1989, Texas populist Jim Hightower was damaged by grand jury leaks for which, Moore and Slater say, Rove remains the most likely source.

    Again, most of the personal slurs against candidates who had the temerity to run against Rove's clients have not been pinned on Rove personally, but they follow a pattern. George W. Bush ousted Ann Richards from the Texas governor's office in 1994 after a whisper campaign focused on a small number of Richards appointees who were lesbians and even suggested that Richards was gay. Bush himself stoked the fire, saying some Richards appointees had agendas that may have been personal in nature.

    In 1990, Hightower's integrity was smeared. A federal investigation of his expenses produced news stories, but no charge, despite Rove's telling Washington reporters that Hightower and several aides face the possibility of indictment.

    In South Carolina in 2000, rumors circulated that John McCain was gay, had a black child, had a Vietnamese child, and got special treatment while a POW in Vietnam. In 2004, a direct link was established between the Bush campaign -- of which Rove was the architect, in Bush's words -- and the libels against John Kerry from the swift boat veterans. With such a history, is it possible that Rove encouraged the Catholic bishops who questioned Kerry's fitness to take Communion?

    Earlier this year, he none-too-subtly bestrode the church-state amalgam that helped elect Bush, telling a sympathetic and enthusiastic audience in Washington that conservatism is the dominant political creed in America. Always on the attack, Rove said just this June that liberals want to prepare indictments and offer therapy to terrorists.

    According to Moore and Slater, the strategy of attack has been constant throughout his career. Rove didn't just want to win; he wanted the opponents destroyed.

    Rove's connection to the Valerie Plame story was the center of attention in mid-July but cooled fast after Bush nominated Roberts to the Supreme Court on July 19. A LexisNexis search reveals 1,944 stories mentioning Rove in the week prior to the nomination, dropping to 1,111 during the week after. Now, with Bush in Crawford for a prolonged vacation, the story has nearly disappeared -- only 169 references in a late-August week.

    Still, more is likely to come out after Labor Day. A special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, is expected to finish his two-year investigation this fall. His goal was to find the person who leaked Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent -- a serious offense in the view of Bush's father. He and many other commentators have deplored the idea that the leaker may have been seeking political retribution at the expense of national security.

    So attention will inevitably turn back again to Karl Rove, who did talk with Novak and other reporters who wrote the story but who is now being portrayed by some as a neutral researcher in the Valerie Plame case. Yes, and sometimes dogs do eat homework.

From the Christian Science monitor online-- an interesting commentary on the Rove issue. 

(I note per the Conservative board that Mr. Wilson is now being vilified.)

 Am worried about Roe v Wade, but not about Rove. He is not worry-worthy - way too much effort. I AM concerned that nothing will happen to any of them that are involved in Plamegate unless it is some third-string low-on-the-totem-pole flunkie who will be completely blindsided when he gets blamed/fired/arrested. This shadow administration is far more evolved than the Nixon guys. I predict nothing will happen to them but what is worse, we have been lied to so often for the last 4+ years that most of us  won't even care. They are going to do what they are going to do...the end.  Here in Florida we voted last election for smaller class sizes and not to build a bullet-train between Tampa and Orlando. Jeb just changed both of those things. We are building the train set up and class sizes stay the same. I wonder why we vote on these amendments at all. What difference does it make? And so it is with D.C. It has not mattered for so long what a great number of us have felt about Iraq and all the lies surrounding it. They just do what they want. And before anyone says "we elected him" as a plausible argument, 51% is not a mandate. One half of this country is on the other side. Our country does not deserve the autocratic theocratic government that has been forced upon us.  When the shoe is inevitably on the other foot I suspect you won't like it either.

Attack your opponents strong points.  Read many posts below that ham-handedly attempt to use this tactic.  Throw in a cup of "sour grapes" and NOW your cookin'.  Go Ron Paul!  Split the vote!

for those too busy posting inaccurate opinions to look things up.

working furiously with a ventiloquist as late as yesterday afternoon.

WASHINGTON - The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer. President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove -- in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond. For the second day, White House press secretary Scott McClellan refused to answer questions about Rove.

_______________

This article says that the White House may have misled the public.  And, they apparently pledged to fire anyone who had leaked this information.  This has become interesting, hope it doesn't fade right away from the public view.

difference, and both words represent betrayal by government in one form or another. 

Women who believe in choice will see their rights digress and witness history go backwards.  CIA agents have already seen that they can't trust their government in a time of war.

Actually, Karl Rove has a very important job.  Because of him and the heat the administration has been taking because of his actions, Bush was forced to actually do his job and nominate a replacement for Justice O'Connor.  Very, very "hard work" before he spends the entire month of August in Crawford.

I think soon, though, y'all will see it didn't work.  Rove can't escape the heat that easily.  I believe you will find that Bush failed in getting the heat taken off of Rove, and he had to rush to do all that "hard work" for no reason at all!

x

I saw it briefly this morning and then it disappeared.  It said that Rove himself found out about Plame's undercover status from Novak, not the other way around!  The article made it sound like this affair was resolved, Rove was the good guy that we all know him to be, ha-ha. 

Well, I suppose I can just wait to see if it reappears.  Seemed surprising, but stranger things have happened.

I checked that "other" board to see if they were crowing about it yet but na-da, nothing so far.  Maybe I misinterpreted it.

Hilariously shows how the hipocrasy knows no bounds: 

http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086

This above is a link to the Daily Show with John Stewart.  I love his show, and Stephen Colbert's.  I'm not a political junkie (yet) so I need a *lot* of comic relief with my politics in order to stomach it. 

Both sides are hypocrites, it's true.  But I swear, the Republicans are so much funnier.  The mental gymnastics they're having to go through in order to claim SP has "experience" alone is a sight to see.  (Watch the clip above if you don't believe me.  Oh, and you can see S. Palin making a good point near the end of it for all of you who are fans of hers.)  In fact, Jon Stewart said he's putting "county first" in supporting Obama, because McCain being the pres. would make his job (as a comedian) so much easier...

Oh, and have no fear, anyone.  I balance out the political comedy with a healthy dose of serious political coverage too.  The most serious I can find lately is the stuff on PBS.  You know, the calm, old-style journalism type, free of the crawl at the bottom of the screen, free of all the hype and wild graphics at the bottom of the screen, free of people shouting because they actually take turns letting each other talk.  Anybody else miss that kind of reporting, where it's kinda boring to watch and you have to actually listen and pay attention to more than sound bites?  Ah, well.  I'm rambling...

Yep, he has refused to show for yet another subpoena, this time because Bush seemingly wrote a letter 4 days before leaving office saying he didn't have to show up?  Give me a break!  This guy is such a crook and needs to be put under the jail.  I hope they fry him.  I wonder what would happen to any of us who refused to show up for a subpoena.....about 3 or 4 times, that is.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/182240/?gt1=43002

they keep the pressure on, because IF our govt has behaved irresponsibly we need to know.

about to come to an end soon?

I think October is going to be a very interesting month.

Dirty politics equals dirty water.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove13jun13,0,1520344,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

From the Los Angeles Times

EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove

The White House says the executive's appeal had no role in changing a measure to protect groundwater. Critics call it a political payoff.

By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten
Times Staff Writers

June 13, 2006

WASHINGTON — A rule designed by the Environmental Protection Agency to keep groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones was loosened after White House officials rejected it amid complaints by energy companies that it was too restrictive and after a well-connected Texas oil executive appealed to White House senior advisor Karl Rove.

The new rule, which took effect Monday, came after years of intense industry pressure, including court battles and behind-the-scenes agency lobbying. But environmentalists vowed Monday that the fight was not over, distributing internal White House documents that they said portrayed the new rule as a political payoff to an industry long aligned with the Republican Party and President Bush.

In 2002, a Texas oilman and longtime Republican activist, Ernest Angelo, wrote a letter to Rove complaining that an early version of the rule was causing many in the oil industry to openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity.

Rove responded by forwarding the letter to top White House environmental advisors and scrawling a handwritten note directing an aide to talk to those advisors and get a response ASAP.

Rove later wrote to Angelo, assuring him that there was a keen awareness within the administration of addressing not only environmental issues but also the economic, energy and small business impacts of the rule.

Environmentalists pointed to the Rove correspondence as evidence that the Bush White House, more than others, has mixed politics with policy decisions that are traditionally left to scientists and career regulators. At the time, Rove oversaw the White House political office and was directing strategy for the 2002 midterm elections.

Angelo had been mayor of Midland, Texas, when Bush ran an oil firm there. He is also a longtime hunting partner of Rove's. The two men first worked together when Angelo managed Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign in Texas.

In an interview Monday, Angelo welcomed the new groundwater rule and said his letter might have made a difference in how it was written. But he waved off environmentalists' questions about Rove's involvement.

I'm sure that his forwarding my letter to people that were in charge of it might have had some impression on them, Angelo said. It seems to me that it was a totally proper thing to do. I can't see why anybody's upset about it, except of course that it was effective.

Asked why he wrote to Rove and not the Environmental Protection Agency or to some other official more directly associated with the matter, Angelo replied: Karl and I have been close friends for 25 years. So, why wouldn't I write to him? He's the guy I know best in the administration.

White House spokesmen said Monday that the rule was revised as part of the federal government's standard rule-making process. They said the EPA was simply directed by White House budget officials to make the rule comply with requirements laid out by Congress in a sweeping new energy law passed last year.

The issue has been a focus of lobbying by the oil and gas industry for years, ever since Clinton administration regulators first announced their intent to require special EPA permits for construction sites smaller than five acres, including oil and gas drilling sites, as a way to discourage water pollution.

Energy executives, who have long complained of being stifled by federal regulations limiting drilling and exploration, sought and received a delay in that permit requirement in 2003. Eventually, Congress granted a permanent exemption that was written into the 2005 energy legislation.

The EPA rule issued Monday adds fine print to that broad exception in ways that critics, including six members of the Senate, say exceeds what Congress intended.

For example, the new rule generally exempts sediment — pieces of dirt and other particles that can gum up otherwise clear streams — from regulations governing runoff that may flow from oil and gas production or construction sites.

Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), who joined five Democrats in objecting to the rule, wrote in March that there was nothing in the energy law suggesting that such an exclusion of sediment had even entered the mind of any member of Congress as it considered the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Moreover, Jeffords wrote, the rule violated the intentions of Congress when it passed the Clean Water Act 19 years ago.

White House and administration officials disagreed.

At the EPA, Assistant Administrator Benjamin H. Grumbles said the rule responded directly to congressional action. He cited a letter from Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, endorsing it. He added that the rule still allows states to regulate pollution, and that it continues to regulate sediment that contains toxic ingredients.

Lisa Miller, a spokeswoman for another senior lawmaker, Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Monday that the rule was designed to hold oil companies accountable for putting toxic substances in the soil, but not for dirt that results from storms.

When it rains, storm water gets muddy, regardless of whether there's an oil well in the neighborhood, Miller said. Congress told EPA to do this, and now they have. If there's oil in the water, a producer has to clean it up. If it's nature, they don't.

The change in the rule occurred last year when staffers in the White House Office of Management and Budget began editing an early version drafted by EPA technical staff. The Office of Management and Budget oversees another division, the Office of Information and Regulatory Policy, which critics complain has served as a central hub in the Bush White House for making government regulations more business-friendly.

A spokesman for the White House budget office, Scott Milburn, said Monday that the White House's involvement in making rules was intended to ensure that agencies issue regulations that follow the law.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino rejected the suggestion that Rove was involved in the rule change. Rove frequently receives requests, she said, and that he tries to reply and direct those requests to the appropriate people. She said that for environmentalists to accuse Rove of manipulating the EPA rule was a typical overreach by administration critics.

That is quite an overreach, when it was the United States Congress that passed the Energy Act in a bipartisan way to ask the EPA to undertake this rulemaking, she said.

In their March letter, Jeffords and his Democratic colleagues asked EPA officials whether the correspondence with Rove influenced the final rule.

A response written by Grumbles did not directly address the Rove question. But the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups assert that they know the answer.

We can't say that Karl Rove walked over to OMB and demanded these changes, said Sharon Buccino, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's land program. But it is clear that there was direction coming from the top of the White House, and this was a result of the thinking of the White House as opposed to environmental experts at EPA.

Buccino called the rule yet another example of the Bush administration rewarding their friends in the oil and gas industry at the expense of the environment and the public's health.

In his letter to Rove, Angelo did not hide his political feelings. He thanked Rove for all you do, and added words of encouragement on another topic: The president has the opposition on the run on the Iraq issue.

His letter appeared to gain notice at the highest levels of the administration. Three months after Angelo sent it, a top EPA official wrote to tell him that the agency had decided to impose the temporary delay on the construction permitting rule for oil and gas companies.

The letter was copied to Rove, White House environmental advisor James L. Connaughton and then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman.