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."
Re:Ever notice? (Score:2, Interesting)
spend more time with what? (Score:1, Interesting)
seriously, that's the most transparent excuse in modern politics. when you are disgraced, you leave and tell the world 'its time to spend more time with my family.'
bollocks.
but at any rate, the damage has already been done. who knows how long we'll be 'paying' for the effect this bastard left on the world. yes, the world - he affect way more than just the US, of course.
what an evil evil man. one of the worst of the last 50 years, if I may be so bold.
Rove gone == good or bad? (Score:2, Interesting)
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. http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pRvic62nhFoJ:
Voter Caging (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
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?
Re:Lets vote rationally. (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a difference between someone who looks ugly and someone who looks dishonest. It's not just physical appearance - it's mannerisms, etc. People are pretty good at reading each other's expressions. The blind guy is a total red herring.
Karl Rove equated to Harry Haldeman (Fox News) (Score:2, Interesting)
I am sure I am revealing my opinion of the Bush administration/Presidency somewhat, but its one heck of a coincidence that arguably the two most corrupted Presidency's of the United States 20th/21st centuries have the two most similar Chiefs of Staff.
Re:Kudos in advance (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 being represented fairly is all about then. If you don't like it, good luck in the next election. That's called democracy.
Re:spend more time with what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Certainly. It comprises a slush in a prius and a hag named tipper.
Disgraced??? Ha! He will go down in history as the most celebrated, most successful deputy cheif-of-staff in American history.
Right, because exposing Kerry as a disingenuous and dishonorable buffoon, is pretty much as evil as Mao murdering 50-odd million people.
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.
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.
Re:Ever notice? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong. [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Ever notice? (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.
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.
Wish I could mod you Insightful. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ever notice? (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that in this age of big money, Congressional candidates are under an enormous amount of pressure to sell their souls for victory. When they get into office, they are now expected to behave precisely as all the strategists and special interests tell them. Congressman and woman ought to read the Constitution really hard to understand the concept of checks and balances. It's their job to offset the President, whether or not he happens to cloak himself in the same colors or not.
Re:Ever notice? (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.h
Gotta love cases like United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms.
Bush may be doing things that are quite objectionable to quite many, but the funny thing is, things that would have been clearly unconstitutional in the past (such as, oh, a federal minimum wage, or federal workplace safety laws) suddenly become constitutional when expedient, with no substantive changes in the underlying text or intent. I always tell people, a constitution subject to interpretational whim is a slippery slope. If you let politicians and judges decide how our fundamental legal foundations change without the bother of amendments and the entire associated process, then odds are it will change in ways you both like and do not like. You can't have it only your way. Unless you try to pack the Court. Like FDR.
Larry