Karl Rove Resigning Aug 31 739
tetrahedrassface writes "According to CNN current Bush Administration political advisor Karl Rove will be resigning his post as senior political advisor at the end of August to spend more time with his family. Few if any prior senior political advisors to presidents have been the lightning rods for controversy that Mr. Rove has. Accused of running smear campaigns and celebrated for pioneering district level up campaigns that rely heavily on databases and fake grassroots origins, Mr Rove is one of the chief architects of the Republican Revolution."
Ever notice? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ever notice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey, it could happen. It's just hard to remember, as for the last 16 years we've had no one but Clinton and Bush. I remember the first time I really paid attention to Bush on TV, after he won his first nomination. I remember thinking, "holy cow, the lefties are going to hate this guy every bit as much as we righties hate Clinton." And I was right. But it doesn't have to be that way. Of course it would be with Hillary. With Obama, I think it would just be a general disgust at his incompetence, like with Carter. The key is whether the person will polarize or unite the center. Someone like Fred Thompson, I think would likely win them over, the way Reagan did. If Newt runs, it's hard to say. He eventually lost the center to Clinton as house speaker, but first he masterminded the Contract with America and won Congress for the Republicans by winning them over. But if he had the machinery of a presidential campaign with which to respond and react to the MSM, who knows?
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Funny)
You owe me a new monitor.
Re:Ever notice? (Score:4, Informative)
He might be humorously surprised at the assertion that Gingrich "masterminded" a political tactic initially conceived by über-pollster Frank Luntz and the Heritage Foundation.
Or, he might be laughing at the use of the term "mastermind" to describe Newt Gingrich, whose political career displayed a great deal of confusing his own hypocritical moralizing and three-bong-hit ideas about the role of the market with public sentiment.
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong again. The House Ethics Committee, both Repubs and Demos with a Repub majority, filed eighty-four ethics charges. Perhaps that may figuratively equal "hundreds," but not literally.
Wrong again, as you would know if you actually read the article I linked which discussed the findings of the ethics committee, instead of disgorging some half-remembered Republican talking point (that I also remember from the relevant period of history.)Far be it from me to hold up the rest of Congress as an ideal of purity, but Gingrich is still a lying hypocrite. And especially so, given his stance as a "reformer."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, it could happen. It's just hard to remember, as for the last 16 years we've had no one but Clinton and Bush. I remember the first time I really paid attention to Bush on TV, after he won his first nomination. I remember thinking, "holy cow, the lefties are going to hate this guy every bit as much as we righties hate Clinton." And I was right. But it doesn't have to be that way.
So far, so good.
Of course it would be with Hillary. With Obama, I think it would just be a general disgust at his incomp
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ever notice? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be a man is not to be afraid, to defend the weak and your ideals. Bush is the school bully who uses fear to get what he wants. American's should not be afraid, we should not cower and we should not give up the liberty that MEN like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin risked everything to win for us. Those were men, Bush is a coward and a bully who sells the beliefs and principles we fought so hard to gain for a bit of power.
Have you ever been to a High School that has one of those nosy people that wants to be in every bit of your business and can't stand it when you tell them to go away you want some privacy? Yeah... that is Bush if that same person was also the school bully who made you do what he wanted out of fear and intimidation and then runs to the principle to cry foul if he doesn't get what he wants. The guy who was so macho but under knew he was really weak and pathetic so he would not stand up to anyone unless 20 people where there to back him up against the one. A man stands up for himself no matter what.
Soldiers risk everything to defend what they believe in. The founding fathers of the US of A risked hanging and their homes to create this country and the rights people today so easily let go. Tell me one thing Bush has done that shows he is willing to risk ANYTHING so much as someone disagreeing with him?
A man as you say... would not use fear to control. He would not use fear to get his people to let him spy on them. He would not use fear and threats to intimidate people into doing what he wanted. A man does not do these things. Bush is a coward, a bully and an idiot that has violated his oath to the American people. Colin Powell was a man, and he would not sacrifice his own personal honor to give Bush credibility.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about the one where the government can now IN SECRET, presenting no evidence or holding no hearing or trial as GUARANTEED by the Constitution, seize your assets? How is that "protecting the constitution?
This does seem a rather natural progression given what we've been doing to our rights for A LONG TIME. Ever heard of civil forfeiture? It's been in use for a long time before Bush.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-345.ZS.ht ml [cornell.edu]
Gotta love cases like United States v. One Ass
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, no one EVER complains about the President (Score:5, Funny)
Lets vote rationally. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the UK, we had a blind home secretary for a while. his eyes went crazy all the time. I guess he would have lost your vote?
I'd be happy never to see a politician, or hear them, so I'm not influenced by such trivialities. What matters is what they propose, what they have done, and what they will do. Looks, Age, voice, style, I couldn't give a damn. the main job of a president or PM is to make the right decisions. You can be a 400 pound ugly son of a bitch who dribbles constantly and sounds like fozzy bear, but if you make the right decisions, I'll vote for you, and I won't care about your race, your gender or your looks.
Re:Lets vote rationally. (Score:5, Insightful)
True enough, though any president or PM is relying heavily on research and advice from hundreds of other people. A leader needs to sound confident more than feel confident. His decisions are in the background and people feel the tremors of them, but when he or she stands at the podium and tells the people how things are going or why he's doing something, looks, timbre, and eyes do count. (See the Nixon vs Kennedy debate: TV-goers decided Kennedy won. Radio-listeners were for Nixon.)
Now there are lots of people with great ideas, but if you're too short, too heavy, don't look good in a suit...then you're already a step behind. People want heroic stature in their leaders. It's not mandatory and can be gleaned over by intelligence, humor, wise words. But it helps as it has always helped. Barak Obama is a good looking, well spoken guy, and it's not hurting him.
Ugly SOB who sounds like Fozzy Bear... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one say good bye and good riddance to Rove. I mean seriously, he has done more to damage this country's political system than just about anybody since the British.
Pushing his radical agenda, which doesn't even reflect genuine conservative values, while making a complete mockery of the entire political process. It genuinely amazes me how so many minority view points have managed to permeate an administration, even after it has lost so much popularity.
The way of campaigning in recent years has been just appalling. The war in Iraq wasn't sufficiently important for congressional attention in '04, but trying to pass a anti-same sex marriage constitutional amendment was worthy of time. I don't get it, why exactly are Republicans so quick to pretend to be conservative? I mean I thought that conservativism had something to do with states rights, keeping the government out of ones business and cutting spending. I haven't seen any progress on any one of those issues in the last 6+ years. Embarrassingly enough, there was more progress on those fronts during the Clinton administration than in GWB's.
And I should probably just mod this down, because this is slashdot, and I'm sure that somebody will do me that favor. I mean, thoughtful posts should never be in the positive, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't personally worry about Hillary. I don't think that she has a snowballs chance.
Given that futures markets [intrade.com] give her nearly double the chance of the second place candidate (39% vs. 20% for Guiliani), why not bet against her and make some money? Since you obviously know more than those who actually are putting real money, rather than just words, on the line.
Hillary Knows Her Futures Market (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But as I said, good luck predicting better than the market. If it was easy, smart people with money would be all over it until the price stabilized at a level where it wasn't easy anymore.
Re:Ever notice? (Score:4, Funny)
Also, the best reason to wish the end of this Presidency is surely that people will stop complaining about him. It's definitely not that he's actually a bad President or that his administration is incompetent or anything. Have you ever thought of getting a job at CNN or maybe replacing Tim Russert on Meet the Press?
Re:Ever notice? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush (and some in his administration) has created such a mess that we will be cleaning it up for some time. You will be hearing complaints for a good while after he is gone, I'm sure of it.
Hell, people are still complaining about Clinton's BJ. How long has he been out of office now?
Yeah...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Her "eyes and expressions"? I suppose Mitt Romney's strong chin makes you trust him and Fred Thompson's masculine smell makes you feel all secure inside.
If you really can tell so by watching a person's eyes and expressions (over the television no less), I bet you can play some kick-ass Texas Hold 'em.
If Hillary's eyes and expression give you cause to worry, what in the name of baldheaded Jesus did you think of Dick Cheney's sneer or George Bush's dopey stare?
Ju
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary was the wife of a person that committed adultery. She handled it publicly and was very conservative with how she handled the public. In terms of popularity, she held on to her position as Senator of New York, so that has to account for something. About what her platform is based on, it's been pretty consistent even though I disagree with some of it. How it develops overtime is anyones guess.
I do know that I am ultimately responsible as a citizen of the US to educate myself about whom I would chose to represent us to the world. So instead of writing someone off because you have a superstitious feeling about them, try to make an educated unbiased guess before you concede to a nihilistic haphazard attitude. Stand up for once and stop saying that it doesn't matter. Apathy is the most ridiculous aspect of humanity sometimes. If you don't like someone, there has to be a reason why other than just superstitious intuition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ever notice? (Score:4, Funny)
inbeforethegrammarnazis
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She handled it publicly and was very conservative with how she handled the public
She blamed "the vast right wing conspiracy" instead of her husband. It was all the fault of those evil republicans since her forever philandering husband would never have an affair in the oval office. Why, way back in 1995, Karl Rove set them up by sending an affluent liberal intern to the White House to tempt Bill so that Bush could steal the election in 2000. Not only that, they drugged Bill Clinton and while he was out, had a very good impersonator do an interview as him where he slammed his fist on the
Hillary Clinton would be one of the best ever (Score:4, Interesting)
Of all of the current candidates, left and right, she is the only one who has consistently, from what I can tell, maintained her positions, even if they weren't always popular. For instance when she was discussing lobbyists with bloggers at the DailyKos, she didn't pander to the popular opinion then. She has, I think, a fairly clear idea of what she wants and what her platform is. She isn't naive (Obama's bullshit about Pakistan was enough to disqualify him), and she has, by virtue of her years with Bill and a state senator, a decent amount of experience. She doesn't have wacky shit like Romney or Giulliani, and she isn't scared of dissenting opinion, which, given the facsist crap that is happening in yuor country, should be a breath of fresh air for everyone.
In fact the only thing that really is not in her favour is that there are one fuck of a lot of Americans that are somehow terrified of women, who spend a whole bunch of energy making hysterical, wildly paranoid prophecies about how bad she would be. I find it difficult to believe that anything could be worse than the incompetent evil clowns in power right now, but there you have it.
Re:Hillary Clinton would be one of the best ever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which was, in retrospect, an incredibly dumb thing to do. The Clinton Administration was marked by a general trend of peace and prosperity, and while Bill Clinton's personal exploits were shameful, his job approval rating remained quite high. If Gore had campaigned on a platform of "keep doing what my predecessor did, except I'm faithful to my wife", he very well could have had an undisputable win in 2000.
I just hope that some people finally put their vote where their mouth is a vote third parties.
I hope that some third-party candidates appear on the scene that actually have the qualifications needed to serve in office. I don't care how long you've been publishing your pamphlet or running your oil fields, if you haven't already been elected to city, county, state or federal government, I don't trust you to lead my nation.
The political machine will chew you up if you don't have experience operating it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care if you know how to operate the political machine. All that means is that you know who to call to get money for your campaigns. Which is why Hillary and Rudy are both out for me.
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
Going by Clinton's approval ratings is misleading. Even against a lackluster candidate like Dole, Clinton was only able to muster 49.2% of the vote during his relection campaign in 1996, despite having around 60% approval ratings at the time. In other words, that high approval rating didn't translate very well into votes at election time. Also...Gore manifestly had a lot of problems:
1) He wasn't Clinton.
2) He didn't have ANY of Clinton's charm or charisma. Where Clinton came across as your buddy, Gore came across as the condescending guy no one likes.
3) From 1992-2000, Gore veered to the left. Politically, he went from being a fairly conservative blue dog Democrat as a Tennessee Senator to being a left-wing idealogue VP. This happened at the same time that the country, as a whole, was trending more conservative. To give you an idea of the impact, Gore lost his home state of Tennessee to Bush in 2000. Forget about Florida, if Gore had simply won Tennessee, he would be President today.
The fact that Gore lost after a successful illustrates his overall weakness as a candidate. Good candidates win elections, bad candidates do not. A fairly simple formula that people, especially party operatives, seem to forget. The Democrats electoral success in 2006 hinged in no small part to them putting forth better candidates than the Republicans (who, in many cases, actually ran to the right of Republicans on certain issues like immigration).
As an aside, the problem with Hillary is...she's not a good candidate. Not because she isn't effective at politics...she is. She is immensely talented, ruthless, and goal oriented. She has a great fund raising machine, and a lot of people owe her favors. The problem is a little over half the voting population won't vote for her under any circumstance. She's extremely polarizing. As popular as Bill was across demographics and party lines, Hillary has never had cross over appeal. Feminists love her, west coast and east cost liberals love her. And that's it. And you can't win an election on that alone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because, by definition, a good candidate is one who wins an election, since the purpose of a candidate is to win the election.
There's a difference between being a good candidate and being a good person, though. Or a good leader, chief executive, whatever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yours is typical of what I regularly bemoan on /. - people linking in "support" of their argument without reading the entirety of the linked materials. I would say the article's citation link pointing out Mr. Paul's failure to apologize for these statements, as well as his attempt to dismiss these racist remarks as "within the context of current events and statistical reports of the time," doesn't exactly make your case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Seeing as she was addressing a group of hundreds of wealthy supporters, and referring specifically to the Bush tax cuts, I don't see your point. Unless you consider progressive taxation to be "communism", in which case, I hear the Birchers [jbs.org] are always looking for members.
Turd Blossom! (Score:2, Interesting)
This man says he's leaving "for his family".
Thant's because they have the evidence of his cruising activities with D.C.'s gay hustlers.
Uh, elections ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, no, once Bush won reelection the ship "Bush II" was home free. Perhaps you heard about an upcoming election season? Rove is a political consultant specializing in getting Republicans elected and advancing conservative initiatives. It is simply time from Karl to get involved in the elections and he can't do that from the White House anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, first, I don't know where you got the idea that the interest on our debt is compounding. It is straight simple interest. Somebody buys a new security from the treasury, and the government pays him fixed interest payments every s
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Informative)
And how's this ship burning? It doesn't appear anyone is going to be indicted for any more crimes. Impeachment proceedings haven't begun. And it's their second term so no worries over re-election. Bush doesn't care about his lack of popularity as he's already accomplished most of his goals.
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like reforming immigration, privatizing Social Security, and establishing an independent, democratic, and peaceful Iraqi state?
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Funny)
Ohhh. The official goals. I see, you didn't get the memo. Wait. Are you on the memo list anyhow? How did you get in here? Guys? Find that person's IP address and bring him to my office! He hacked me and gained confidential information!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that in this age of big money,
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not aligned either way, but in my opinion he's the *only* Republican that has an ounce of credibility left.
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the time, everyone pretty much knew that Powell didn't agree with the way the war was going to be executed. After all, the "Powell Doctrine" of always going in with overwhelming force was named after him, and the Bush administration (thanks mainly to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) were convinced they could get it done with a much smaller force. Not to mention that he was perfectly willing to go up in front of the UN and present intelligence that he (allegedly) knew to be faulty when he made the speech. The fact that he said he regretted it later doesn't change the fact that he was willing to tow the party line in the face of his own (alleged) doubts.
The thing that makes him ill suited for high office, though, is not that he was right about these things, it's that he was totally ineffective at convincing the people that mattered to do things his way. What good is someone who has all the right answers if he is incapable of exercising any influence over anyone? Powell was Secretary of State, one of the most powerful cabinet positions in terms of foreign policy, and he was unable to convince anyone in the administration that his viewpoint was the correct one.
Yes, the President and his advisors are notoriously hard headed, but if you can't at least reach some sort of compromise with hard headed people, how can you manage foreign affairs, a game that involves talking to heads of state that are pretty much all egotistical and hard headed by nature? We don't need, and we frankly can't afford, another President whose only influence over foreign heads of state derives from his willingness to conduct preemptive strikes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This administration has shown from the beginning that they're not willing to compromise or negotiate with anyone. As you
Re:Ever notice? (Score:4, Insightful)
I dunno. It doesn't look to me like Bush has accomplished any goals, unless his goals were the humiliation of the US on the international stage.
(I would lay the blame for 9-11 on him as well, but to be honest, his part in that was rather small. The blame for the attacks sits more on Bill Clinton's shoulders. So take that, you Dwemocwats).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, even with all that lost intelligence, even with all the horrible, horrible things Clinton supposedly did to our intelligence and national security apparatus... it was still able to provide written warning of pretty much exactly what was going to happen and put it in Bush's hands on August 6th.
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Funny)
Written warning ? The fools ! They should had read it aloud !
Seriously speaking, maybe the intelligence organizations need to take heed of schoolteachers; the person the report is delivered to must submit in return, in a given timeframe, a summary of the reports contents (to prove he has read it) and a summary of actions he has taken concerning it, as well as the reasons he considers said actions adequate. Failure to do so satisfactorily will result in being placed in detention in a secret CIA torture facility.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ever notice? (Score:5, Funny)
He operates under beliefs, not by raising his finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing
The direction of the wind at least has some basis in fact, in that it means doing what the populace wants them to do. Granted, most people couldn't find their way out of a paper sack with a map and a flashlight, but I'll take playing to the polls over playing god any day.
What's going to happen when we beat the terrorists in Iraq?
I dunno... We'll all have to duck the flying pigs? Bush can look forward to building snowmen in the afterlife? Goatse-man will experience the least pain of all of us when monkeys start flying out?
Or, if we actually can claim such a victory, we can polish the crater and use the newly-vitreous ex-middle-east as the largest objective lens on the planet for a new telescope? Hrmph, and to think some people have the audacity to claim Bush doesn't support science!
Re:Ever notice? (Score:4, Interesting)
I would go so far as to say Bush's low popularity numbers reflect on how much conviction he has. He operates under beliefs, not by raising his finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing (IE Dems on Iraq).
Sticking to one's "convictions" when reality has proven them wrong is not an admirable trait. When you find you are digging yourself into a hole, you stop digging, not "stay the course" and dig faster.
If they have any sense they'll cut our losses and write off Iraq. The American people, unfortunately, probably don't have the patience for the time and effort it would take to clean up the huge mess Bush has made.
And hopefully after a few years of no major terrorist activity the cowardly conservatives crying like children about monsters under their beds will grow up and grow some balls.
Kudos in advance (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, I believe it would be fair to say that it was slashdot that single-handedly relegated the old connotation of "tinfoil hat" to the dustbin, leaving instead something that could only be termed fashionable, if unique, headwear in its wake. I know of no other web site that could have accomplished this return to such a balance and due consideration of all sides of an issue in its discourse.
Only on slashdot can such a discussion be guaranteed to be free of cynicism that dominates other venues of debate. Here, opposing viewpoints will be examined and considered, and not snuffed out. Nor will the community elevate viewpoints which only serve to reinforce their preconceived notions; indeed, slashdot, especially its comments, is the place to come for an evenly weighted consideration of any issue, especially issues of a political nature.
Neither will commenters fall to the common fallacy of "recentism", believing that a recent event must necessarily be the worst such case of an event in the history of mankind; instead recognizing that the internet can simply deluge us with an increasingly unprecedented level of information about any person or group which may pique our interest, allowing a wide range of ever more specific issues and minutia to be amplified to levels never witnessed in the past.
Moreover, I can tell by the (current) article title - "Politics: Carl Rove Resigning Aug 31" - that this discussion will have the highest regard for accuracy not only in content, but in spelling and grammar, as regular slashdot visitors will no doubt recognize to be the status quo. This level of accuracy can only be achieved by the tireless work of slashdot's editors, who carefully review each submission to the site.
So, bravo, slashdot - not only for what you have accomplished for political discussion in the past, but for the discussion you are about to have. It is exactly this kind of level-headed discussion that keeps people coming back for evenly balanced news and careful interpretation on nearly any topic.
Bravo, indeed!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
(this is nice: Neither will commenters fall to the common fallacy of "recentism", believing that a recent event must necessarily be the worst such case of an event in the history of mankind; instead recognizing that the internet can simply deluge us with an increasingly unprecedented level of information about any person or group which may pique our interest, allowing a wide range of ever more specific issues and minuti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if it's a discussion about Rove, decorum and civility would be highly inappropriate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are absolutely right, and I think that Slashdot is an example of civility that should be taken as a model by LittleGreenFootball, the DailyKos, Alternet and
Re:Kudos in advance (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, in the middle of your effort to point out what's wrong with political discussion in the USA, you're encouraging one of the more insidious flaws in mainstream media coverage: the idea that "due consideration" will always be "evenly balanced". Sometimes the right way to "Teach the Controversy" is just to point out the objective facts which make the fringe side of the controversy look stupid, not to fill 50% of your story with flat-earther quotes and title the whole thing "Shape of Earth: Views Differ".
Most online discussion is even worse, since people have ten thousand popular blogs to choose from and so naturally gravitate to the ones that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs - so instead of reading stories that don't challenge our objectively questionable views, we get to read stories that don't challenge any of our views. By this standard, Slashdot's political discussions are actually pretty good - the tech crowd skews more libertarian than average, but because Slashdot is not inherently a political site there's still enough liberals and conservatives and socialists and such in the crowd to make things interesting, most of whom aren't just trolls. The nested comments are lightyears ahead of most sites for encouraging constructive debate, and if you set your threshold to 4 or lower you'll even get to read the most well-written anti-groupthink side of that debate.
Re:Kudos in advance (Score:5, Insightful)
Some editorial discussion is also an issue of severely misplaced priorities. A greater disservice is done to the population being served by a particular media outlet when they disproportionately represent threats from, e.g., our own government, versus radical Panislamic terrorists or longer term from China.
There are many supposedly intelligent and well-educated individuals who literally and fervently believe that the Bush administration is the single greatest threat to the American people that has existed in the history of the nation, and any other current or historical external threat is either manufactured or pales in comparison to the present "internal" threat. Further, any media outlet that does not represent the situation in this fashion is therefore not reporting the "truth".
Then again, a disappointingly - and increasingly - large number of these people also genuinely believe that 9/11 was executed (or at the very least "allowed to happen") by the United States government as an excuse to warmonger in the Mideast, so I suppose I should not find this surprising. I do, however, find it extremely disheartening.
It's almost not so much what the media is reporting; it seems a great deal of people have already chosen their ideological "side", as it were, in many of these debates, and will simply seek out "news" that supports their point of view, and discount any other source that doesn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The War of 1812 also suggests itself as a possibility.
Let's not forget Prohibition, which - it could be argued - led to the rise of organized crime, an immense expansion of federal law enforcement power (which we're seeing the fallout of currently), and even (arguably, but at a bit more of a stretch) the War on Drugs.
And, speaking of the War on Drugs, which predates the Bush administration by quite a bit, I'd think i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There have been greater external threats as well. I hope - I really hope - we don't have to enumerate them.
If we do, that implies that the US is the likely only nation to never have any external threats, and to only be a threat to itself, which is ridiculous.
I hope against hope you're not one of those people who genuinely believes that.
Re:Kudos in advance (Score:5, Insightful)
The contention that we should be respectful towards him is absurd. He spent decades working as hard as he could to ensure that everyone's interests were not represented equally or fairly, and helping to destroy the middle ground, to make the "us versus them" vision of politics more deeply entrenched.
Sure, there have been power plays for a long time; Machiavelli wasn't born yesterday, nor was he the originator of all his described tactics. But that said, the fact that something is old does not make it desirable or excusable.
As such, I say "FUCK YOU" to Mr. Rove, and I sincerely hope that one of those dove's that he's planning on killing drops a turd right in his eye.
And a "FUCK YOU" to you too, you righteous asshole. This is a man who perfected the modern use of hate as a political lever. He shall reap what he was sown.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think that's really true, so it's a bit hypocritical for you to criticize Rove for doing well what Democrats would love to do. Remember, Rove is where he was because of the outcome of an election. I don't really understand what your crying about interests not
Re:Kudos in advance (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sickening how often I see somebody justifying bad actions by saying that the other side has done the same thing, or as is the case in your post, that the other side might want to do the same thing.
This moral equivalence argument has become so common that you even followed it up by calling me a hypocrite for not granting the argument against a pure hypothetical.
Two wrongs don't make a right. They never will.
Again, this is not a party-specific complaint, but the fact that you would make these comments, seemingly sincerely, goes a long way to showing how many people view democracy as nothing more than an "us versus them" game in which one side wins and the other must lose.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
People call the modern GOP fascist all the time, but it's rare to see one of you actually come out and claim proudly that yes, you are fascist and that you're proud of it.
Personally, I see no source of pride.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure there are plenty of people on the Democratic side that dream of cementing a permanent Democratic electoral majority too. Neither objective is evil, unless of course, you consider the Democratic or Republican party as innately evil. And if you do, honestly, you have no business discussing politics.
The contention that we sh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, he wasn't. He only pitted the entire country against each other on the issues of terrorism, same-sex rights, Iraq, immigration, abortion... every even election year, the Republicans trotted out another dead horse to beat righteously in a desperate attempt to attract blacks, fundamentalist Christians, anyone they could, to the Republican party.
If anything, he's a "bi
"News For Nerds" indeed. (Score:3)
i don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
and this thread will get about 10,000 cheers for his departure and exclamations of his slimeball status
regardless, neither the comments nor this story has anything remotely to do with slashdot
"news for nerds", right?
yes, this is news, but not slashdot news
Have you ever seen Karl Rove? (Score:5, Funny)
Respectfully, I disagree. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is news for nerds, when an administration is guilty of supporting failing industries like airlines, stopping the path for new airlines to make headway into the arena. It is news for nerds when we remove the advisor who played the "Wizard of Oz" with what should be the most powerful man in the world.
In reality though, it won't change a thing. Rove's departure is too little, too late. My hope is that charges are brought upon him for the firing of the US Attorneys and making it politically motivated, for helping cherry pick intelligence to make a case for a war of choice, for re-writing documents written by climatologists to show that global warming is a hoax, and on and on. The intelligent folks would start the indictment towards the end of Bush's term, and have it run through after he is out of office. No sentence should be passed while George Bush is in office. This way, when faced with SOLID jail time, Karl Rove will show how his underhanded life will play against George Bush and Co when he starts blathering about every bad thing he and his buddies in the White House did during his tenure. And you can bet that it would happen if he did face jail time.
For an administration so bent on war, almost all of them deferred multiple times to stay out of Vietnam, or flew aircraft that were obsolete and had no chance of being used in battle. When they are faced with the violent fact of jail -- you can bet they will try to "defer" yet again.
Oh Please. (Score:5, Insightful)
This politics section is a joke. This is not news for nerds. This is raw meat for the digg/kos crowd. Remember when CmdrTaco said they would be fair? It's not even close. Trolls like kdawon and Zonk use this section as their personal soapbox. It's ridiculous when anyone says it's anything but.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush can pardon Rove
Re:i don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that, my friend, is the problem.
Politicians in both parties are ruining this country because people have divorced themselves from the political process. Politicians will continue to take your money and spend it as they see fit, get us into wars, and commit attrocities in your name whether you're involved in the process or not.
Voting is not just a right: It's a responsiblity. Being informed about the issues allows you to take that responsiblity seriously.
I know man
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you truly can't handle political stories on
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Rove Responds (Score:5, Funny)
"When asked for comment Mr. Rove stated, 'I believe we will be settling down in this place called The Shire. I understand great opportunity exists there to squash more insurgency....'"
Naturally, you'd have to have read the actual LoTR to get that and not just seen the movies....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe this will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouring_of_the_Shir
WARNING!!! SPOILER!!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Funny)
On a side note, I couldn't believe that the OP had to mention that you needed to have read the books to get the Scouring of the Shire refernce. I mean, this is /.! But of course someone came along and not only hadn't read the books, but then went on to argue with them... Which I guess means that this really is /.
Rove gone == good or bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
Trade off (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, if or when it hits the fan, any work he may have done after that date would not have the protection of his White house job or "Executive Privilege".
In any event, expect the dirty tricks to continue as usual.
How much do you want to bet (Score:2)
I am sure many others have noticed this... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, this simple sentence has practically become equivalent with "I need to resign in a hurry, to organize my legal defense", for Pete's sake!
So, let's start the rumor mill: why is Karl Rove really resigning?
Any ideas?
Re:I am sure many others have noticed this... (Score:5, Funny)
That's not surprising at all.
implications for boths sides (Score:5, Insightful)
"swiftboated" (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say the Democrats are likely to win, because the Republican Party has been using too many "by any means necessary" political strategies that helped them in the short run, at the cost of completely ruining their credibility in the long term. Maybe by 2012 the American people will have forgotten enough of the crap they've suffered through over the last few years, but I seriously doubt they will have by next year. Peopl
Well here goes (Score:4, Informative)
That said, Karl Rove's handling of the 2000 presidential election was excellent, but the 2004 presidential election was masterful. Granted, the democrats helped some (and appear to be helping again now, for that matter), but there is no way Bush would have been re-elected without his help. In any normal situation the incompetency of any of those three items would have cost Bush the 2004 elections. I'm kind of sorry to see him go, regardless of my opinion of the administrations polices, Karl Rove is a master of politics and for good or for badad, I think he should have stuck around to see it though, there is only another 18 months in the administration, after all, and I'm sure he's on the short list of blanket pardons that Bush is going to write as he exits his term in office.
Besides that, who is left for the media to target? Dick? He is already a target, and doesn't care. He has so much "clout" in Washington that he can, and does, ignore everyone and do his own thing.
innuendo, lies, and manipulation (Score:3, Informative)
As if the other side never does that? Please.
As a retired Captain (USAF), I took great offense at Al Gore's election-2000 team explicitly trying to get them to throw out the absentee votes of GIs stationed overseas. What was the usual reason? No postal cancellation. Much mail sent by those on ships doesn't get cancelled. There was one especially grevious case--a guy serving on one of the ships helping
My take (Score:5, Insightful)
1.) K, it's not exactly tech news, but I still think it's very relevant to us news-reading nerds. Love or hate, discussions about this administration fueled a great deal of the web 2.0/blog explosion. Granted, that would've happened regardless of who was in the white house, but U.S. politics has had its nose in lots of issues directly related to technology. It's also correctly filed under "politics" so I don't have a problem with it.
2.) Love him or hate him, Rove is a brilliant and cunning political strategist. His president cannot be re-elected and is effectively a lame duck. Bush will wane in the public mind, take lots of vacations, and shoo away congressional investigations like irritating flies for his remaining term--he really doesn't need Rove anymore and would prefer he go off and do what he's proven himself so good at--campaigning for the Republican party in what will doubtlessly be a very difficult upcoming election. I doubt Rove will jump in head first as an official political advisor to anyone anytime soon, but I also doubt he'll be able to resist helping out in an unofficial capacity--it's what he does best.
3.) The "Miss Piggy / Gay bar" bit is just silly. Even if he was gay (which I doubt) he's far too clever to fall into a trap remotely like that. Let me know when there's a vaguely credible source for that goofy rumor and maybe I'll bother to give it more thought.
Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't you mean he's one of the people responsible for ending it? As far as I can see, the Republicans have been winning less and less over the last 8 years, to the point where most pundits believe the Dems will win the presidency and both houses of Congress in '08. The only people happy about Rove's departure should be Republicans.
On the other hand, since so many Democrats think he's some sort of genius... what does that say?
I find this highly odd (Score:3, Interesting)
This move doesn't make any sense. Just when the Bushites need him the most, he "quits"? Here's a list of reasons why this is bizarre:
Like so many before, "spending time with his family" is a polite lie. Just because he's leaving his official post doesn't mean he won't still be pulling the puppet strings from backstage.
Something else, really big, is going on.
his life's work ahead of him... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gunslinger Karl (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)