http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070813/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove_resigning

Karl Rove to leave White House

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 41 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Karl Rove, President Bush's close friend and chief political strategist, announced Monday he will leave the White House at the end of August, joining a lengthening line of senior officials heading for the exits in the final 1 1/2 years of the administration.
ADVERTISEMENT

On board with Bush since the beginning of his political career in Texas, Rove was nicknamed "the architect" and "boy genius" by the president for designing the strategy that twice won him the White House. Critics call Rove "Bush's brain."

"Karl Rove is moving on down the road," Bush said, appearing grim-faced on the White House's South Lawn with Rove at his side.

"We've been friends for a long time and we're still going to be friends ... I'll be on the road behind you here in a bit," he said ruefully.

"I'm grateful to have been a witness to history. It has been the joy and the honor of a lifetime," said Rove, his voice quivering at times. "But now is the time. ... At month's end," Rove said, "I will join those whom you meet in your travels, the ordinary Americans who tell you they are praying for you."

After a lengthy hug from Bush and then his wife, Laura, Rove joined them on the president's helicopter. Rove, his wife and their son were flying with Bush on Air Force One to Texas, where the president is vacationing.

A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months during the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name but he was never charged with any crime. In a more recent controversy, Rove, citing executive privilege, has refused to testify before Congress about the firing of U.S. attorneys.

Rove's departure reinforces Bush's lame-duck stature and declining influence, particularly with Democrats in control on Capitol hill.

"Obviously it's a big loss to us," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said. "He's a great colleague, a good friend, and a brilliant mind. He will be greatly missed, but we know he wouldn't be going if he wasn't sure this was the right time to be giving more to his family, his wife Darby and their son. He will continue to be one of the president's greatest friends."

Since Democrats won control of Congress in November, some top administration officials have announced their resignations. Among those who have left are White House counselor Dan Bartlett, budget director Rob Portman, chief White House attorney Harriet Miers, political director Sara Taylor, deputy national security adviser J.D. Crouch and Meghan O'Sullivan, another deputy national security adviser who worked on Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was forced out immediately after the election as the unpopular war in Iraq dragged on. White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day they would be obliged to remain through the end of the president's term in January 2009.

Rove became one of Washington's most influential figures during Bush's presidency. He is known as a ruthless political warrior who has an encyclopedic command of political minutiae and a wonkish love of policy. Rove met Bush in the early 1970s, when both men were in their 20s.

Once inside the White House, Rove grew into a right-hand man.

Rove is expected to write a book after he leaves. He disclosed his departure in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

"I just think it's time," Rove said in an interview at his home on Saturday. He first floated the idea of leaving to Bush a year ago, the newspaper said, and friends confirmed he'd been talking about it even earlier. However, he said he didn't want to depart right after the Democrats regained control of Congress and then got drawn into policy battles over the Iraq war and immigration.

"There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family," said Rove, who has been in the White House since Bush took office in 2001.

Rove's son attends college in San Antonio and he said he and his wife plan to spend much of their time at their nearby home in Ingram.

Rove, currently the deputy White House chief of staff, has been the president's political guru for years and worked with Bush since he first ran for governor of Texas in 1993.

Even as he discussed his departure, Rove remained characteristically sunny. This quality of unrelenting optimism about the president, which matches Bush's own upbeat, never-admit-disappointment nature, has at times gotten Rove into trouble. Up to the end of the 2006 midterm elections, the political guru predicted a Republican win. That of course was not to be, and there was grumbling that Rove wasn't on his game during those elections as much as he had been before.

In the interview, Rove predicted Bush will regain his popularity, which has sunk to record lows because of the war in Iraq.

Rove also predicted conditions in Iraq would improve and that the Democrats would nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, calling her "a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate."

Rove does not intend to work for any candidate in the 2008 presidential election, White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

Rove testified before a federal grand jury in the investigation into the leak of the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA officer whose husband was a critic of the war in Iraq. That investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby on charges of lying and obstructing justice. Plame contends the White House was trying to discredit her husband.

Attorneys for Libby told jurors at the onset of his trial that Libby was the victim of a conspiracy to protect Rove. Details of any save-Rove conspiracy were promised but never materialized.

The most explicit testimony on Rove came from columnist Robert Novak, who outed Plame in a July 2003 column. He testified that Rove, a frequent source, was one of two officials who told him about Plame. Libby, with whom he seldom spoke, was not a source.

Rove, though, was not indicted after testifying five times before the grand jury, occasionally correcting misstatements he made in his earlier testimony.

The jury in Libby's trial did not hear that testimony, nor did it hear that Rove is credited as an architect of Republican political victories and has been accused by opponents of playing dirty tricks.

All that jurors heard is that Rove leaked Plame's identity and, from the outset, got political cover from the White House. He was never charged with a crime.

Good riddance. Too bad so much damage has already been done. Thanks for dividing America, you SOB.

- N

Oh, you beat me to it. I would rather see him leave in handcuffs. Oh well, he did his damage.

Good riddance. Too bad so much damage has already been done. Thanks for dividing America, you SOB.

- N

Oh frabjous day...actually, I never really "got" the animosity towards Rove. I take it he's suspected to have had a role in the Plame game, but not clear that anyone really knows that it was him (and not, say, Cheney).

I got the sense he was a favorite target just because he was the point man on political operations for the President, and he was a bit too good at his job. Perhaps he was behind some campaign of "dirty tricks" or something, but it seems to me he's more of a symbol of things people do not like about the way the GOP conducts itself politically.

...but it seems to me he's more of a symbol of things people do not like about the way the GOP conducts itself politically.

Compared to those bastions of honesty and integrity: the Democrats!

~String

Compared to those bastions of honesty and integrity: the Democrats!

~String

You have to admit the Republicans are the more corrupt. Lets see, Jack Abramoff Convicted, Scooter Libby convicted, Duke Cunningham convicted, Bush's Enron posse convicted,former Illinois Governor George Ryan convited,GOP fundraiser Tom Noe convicted, 2 Republican Board of election officials in Ohio were recently convicted for vote tampering.Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, George Allens fatal Macca moment. Man, I'll stop now because I'll be here all night. Democrats has it's bad apples too. But the Republicans have been getting convicted left and right over the last few years. We're definitely the lessor of the 2 evils.

The fatest of the Rats leave a sinking ship first. This fat f*cker is going to write a book to the conservative sheeple and get even richer.

You have admit the Republicans are the more corrupt. Lets see, Jack Abramoff Convicted, Scooter Libby convicted, Duke Cunningham convicted, Bush's Enron posse convicted,former Illinois Governor George Ryan convited,GOP fundraiser Tom Noe convicted, 2 Republican Board of election officials in Ohio were recently convicted for vote tampering.Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, George Allens fatal Macca moment. Man, I'll stop now because I'll be here all night. Democrats has it's bad apples too. But the Republicans have been getting convicted left and right over the last few years. We're definitely the lessor of the 2 evils.
Democrats are rarely even charged no matter how severe their crime, especially if their name is Kennedy. So a list of convictions doesn't mean crap.

Democrats are rarely even charged no matter how severe their crime, especially if their name is Kennedy. So a list of convictions doesn't mean crap.

Blame your inept party. They were in full control of the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches for the last 6 years.

I hate to muddy the water with some facts, but here's an interview with Paul Gigot, who recently spoke with Mr. Rove about his departure.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid452319854/bctid1140731004

Better question: Can he still be subpoened now that he resigned?

By the way both String and MAW are pathetic apologists... :(

I hate to muddy the water with some facts, but here's an interview with Paul Gigot No problem. There were no facts in that interview.

Spend time with his family? His current wife seems to dislike and avoid him, his first wife has trashed him all over Dallas, his kid has gone off to college, c'mon.

How about: he and W both want to put as much distance as possible between himself and about twenty investigations into federal corruption and crime, and between himself and the implosion of this presidency. He's widely and thoroughly despised by Republicans as well as others, his only virtue was that he won (which excused anything, in Republican eyes), and he's stopped winning. Turdblossom is getting ripe.

Partial list of incoming subpeonas: emails, Abramoff (still), Plame (still), the AG business, Iglesias, voting and balloting irregularities, the Hatch Act business, maybe even the Gannon business, or something left over from Texas. And long rounds of compulsory testimony on related matters with other officials, or efforts to block it. He's not going to get anything done for a while anyway.

Better question: Can he still be subpoened now that he resigned?

Harriet Miers hasn't had to; she's still claiming executive privilege.

I've never heard or read anything about Rove that did anything other than make me feel contempt for him. Just because he is resigning this position doesn't mean we have seen the last of his underhanded "win at any cost" political strategies - he may go to work for one of the Republican candidates.

Turdblossom is getting ripe. :cheers:

Well, big surprise, in a new interview, GW Jr assures us American people he most certainly will know exactly what time it is and has appointed Rove to UAE where he will manage the ME arm of the GW Wucka (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wucka)institute there - they supply oil to needy 1st world nations.

Rove is now free to coordinate the Republican 2008 elections campaign. ;)

Democrats are rarely even charged no matter how severe their crime, especially if their name is Kennedy. So a list of convictions doesn't mean crap.

Kennedy who?? :bugeye:

Regardless, a Republican Congress impeaches a Democratic president because he had his fly open. Terrible crime of morality. But really, where's those WMD King George? Lead a country into war on a lie, and know that impeachment is not likely due to partisan politics. Yet another blasphemy to the U.S. Constitution and its checks and balances. Lack of partisan politics was actually a part of the constitutional intent of our republican democracy, and its presence has disasterously weakened the power and portence of impeachment.

Yes, that is what i heard. Rove is leaving to work on the 2008 Republican dirty tricks campaign program....getting the Robersons of the world to make their Clinton horor movies for their minions about how the Clintons got together in the Whitehouse and murdered some person or persons yet to be found.

Rove is now free to coordinate the Republican 2008 elections campaign. ;)

Bingo!

He can also work 'on the ground' to pitch the transnational superhighway to the Texans who seem to want nothing to do with it.

...transnational superhighway...
Isn't that the proposed road with no exits until after the Canadian border?

Funny to hear the Repubilcans start rallying their base again with cries of unfair Democrats. It also amuses me that their bases buys the fact that after seven years in the Whitehouse and control of congress for more than a decade they still find time to blame Clinton for current problems. :)

Rove is now free to coordinate the Republican 2008 elections campaign He always was - nothing has changed there.

But no candidate will likely have him on staff, publically - he has to get paid somehow. He's going to have legal expenses. Think tank, maybe.

His only likely role would be attacking national Dem figures, as an "independent" not formally affiliated with the Republican Party.

He always was - nothing has changed there.

But no candidate will likely have him on staff, publically - he has to get paid somehow. He's going to have legal expenses. Think tank, maybe.

His only likely role would be attacking national Dem figures, as an "independent" not formally affiliated with the Republican Party.

Legal expenses for?

What laws has he broken other than the utopian dream laws concocted up by democrat/socialsits?

Please enligthen me, or shut up.

Again, as before with you, the onus is on you to show us the way.

http://www.bmezine.com/news/guest/20070818.html

On the occasion of Karl Rove's resignation, an alleged friend of his adoptive father's recounts some fond memories of that father - plausibly, and accountably. And a bit of Karl's personality and behavior starts to add up.

Warning: it's a bit - unusual - sexually. Not porn, exactly, but maybe not for everybody's kids.

Yes, what a reputable source that looks like. And even if it were true, I fail to see what the hell it has to do with anything...

Seriously, Ice. I expect better from you than pictures of penises that somehow link to politicians you don't like. If I had posted that sort of rubbish about one your darlings, you'd call me out for the useless slander it is...

And even if it were true, I fail to see what the hell it has to do with anything.

You don't find it remotely interesting that Karl Rove helped mastermind a political campaign that included his adoptive father among the targets?

Admittedly, the connection is tenuous inasmuch as I have a hard time figuring how it would be sublimated, but then again, I'm not Karl Rove. But it's one of those curious things, how people with political influence are willing to advocate policies that hurt their own family, and reduce those people's standing among humanity. It's easy to say, "Just because ____ is my relative doesn't mean he/she should be allowed ____", but when we cut through the political rhetoric of the issues, say, for instance, gay marriage, the bite is unavoidable: "Just because ____ is my relative doesn't mean he/she somehow deserves to be treated as a human being." Church marriages? Fine, whatever. Religion is as religion does, hatred and all. But marriage is also a civil issue, and in fighting to deny Louis Claude Rove, Mary Cheney, or Candace Gingrich the same things other human beings get is to fight against their recognition as human beings.

The point and method of sublimation will perhaps be a mystery for the ages. I'm not so inclined to dedicate my life to figuring out Karl Rove as to collect every scrap of evidence I can. After all, the man is shite, and proud of that fact. I see no reason to deify excrement.

You're post is so full of shit it's almost not even worth responding to, but I should have expected you'd see nothing wrong with this and would rush to the ramparts and stand at Ice's defense (woe to the soul who questions how John Edwards makes his money, though).

Karl Rove is a dangerous and divisive ideologue. I have no time for him and his ilk and their political trickery. Just like our inept dunce of a president, the man has a record a mile long and there's plenty to criticize. But as when they are criticizing Bush, certain people can't resist wandering off the path to find and peddle ridiculous fodder like this as legitimate criticism. It's pathetic. There are more than enough facts to "nail" Rove with. Do we really need stories that can't be confirmed from questionable websites about people with metal stuck in their genitalia? I don't think we do. Clearly, you think otherwise...

Again, if this had been posted about a Democrat, the pair of you would be howling and casting your usual epitaphs around: Bigot and hate-monger and the like...

Again, if this had been posted about a Democrat, the pair of you would be howling and casting your usual epitaphs And somehow, that evidence-free and implausible hypothetical joins all the others and becomes part of the reality base of your world view.

Epitaphs?

If this had been posted about a Democrat who had made his living pandering to and manipulating bigots and homophobes, while maintaining a stable of professional associations with a whole raft of professionally closeted gays, and while surrounded by an aura of barely concealed baby-faced deceit and perversion himself (we still don't know who, or even how many, of the people in the White House were being serviced by the studly and fabulous Jeff Gannon), I would have calmly recognized the relevance with no howling.

I'm not all that fond of the Beltway Dems, actually. Never have been.

This administration is corrupt, fascistic, and decadent. Karl is at the center of it. It's worth considering where Karl is coming from, if we have a few minutes.

Y'know, Ice, I have a sneaking suspicion about two things:

(1) We're looking at the value of what this article suggests differently.
(2) Our associate does not seem to recognize this possibility.

Beyond that, I am having a hard time imagining the Democrat's equivalent of Rove. It's not that Dems can't be ruthless, incomprehensible caricatures of themselves; look at James Carville, for instance. But there is something about the progression of conservatives from Atwater through right-wing radio and on to the current Rove era that actually defies what the Democratic Party is supposed to be about. But it certainly is possible that the Democrats won't dominate American politics until they learn to rely entirely on superstition, deceit, and hatred. Of course, at that point, they'll probably be the conservative party again. In the end, though, it's like anything. Whether we accept or reject someone's philosophy, potential insight to its formative factors is helpful. For me, though I most likely would disagree with Rove's method of sublimation, the article does nothing to increase the severity of contempt by which I regard him. Pity isn't generally regarded as a positive emotion these days, but it's a start compared to what I do feel toward the man. I can believe Bush is enough of a goofball to have stumbled into this mess without meaning to, but Rove doesn't have that excuse. He's as guilty as they come in the current debacle called the United States of America. In that sense, this sort of thing knocks a couple years off the sentence I would give.

And somehow, that evidence-free and implausible hypothetical joins all the others and becomes part of the reality base of your world view.

Evidence? I think your participation in a previous thread is evidence enough of how you can behave when irritated. And one doesn't have to search your comrade's posts too long to find clumsy monikers like "hate-monger" being applied to people. Heck, it was applied to me in the John Edwards thread. So no, my remarks was not "evidence-free." Rather, it was evidence-full.

Epitaphs?

Yes, as in trying to "bury" a poster and label their deeds. If you don't follow it, then I apologize for offering a crude metaphor...

If this had been posted about a Democrat who had made his living pandering to and manipulating bigots and homophobes, while maintaining a stable of professional associations with a whole raft of professionally closeted gays, and while surrounded by an aura of barely concealed baby-faced deceit and perversion himself (we still don't know who, or even how many, of the people in the White House were being serviced by the studly and fabulous Jeff Gannon), I would have calmly recognized the relevance with no howling. ... This administration is corrupt, fascistic, and decadent. Karl is at the center of it. It's worth considering where Karl is coming from, if we have a few minutes.

As my previous post makes clear, I don't disagree with many of your conclusions (the facist accusation is patently ridiculous, though). However, in this case, your method (your choice of material) is extremely poor. One could argue it even borders on the Rovian tactics you claim to abhor. Bringing a man's family into it? Talking about sexual preferences and fetishes? It's lewd, silly and logically beside the point. I have a step-father, too. Must I agree with all his personal preferences if I become a political operator?

And finally, your source stinks. It's anecdotal, can't be confirmed and comes from some bizarre website (one has to wonder where you find these things)...

I am having a hard time imagining the Democrat's equivalent of Rove.

Let's look at a few with similar political effect, then: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Murtha, Tom Daschle, George Soros, Sidney Blumenthal, Paul Begalia, James Carville (who you mentioned), Ted Kennedy and Al Gore.

IBut it certainly is possible that the Democrats won't dominate American politics until they learn to rely entirely on superstition, deceit, and hatred.

Do you really think they never resort to such tactics?

Whether we accept or reject someone's philosophy, potential insight to its formative factors is helpful.

Even if they're packaged as a crude expose'?

Kennedy who?? :bugeye:

Regardless, a Republican Congress impeaches a Democratic president because he had his fly open. Terrible crime of morality. But really, where's those WMD King George? Lead a country into war on a lie, and know that impeachment is not likely due to partisan politics. Yet another blasphemy to the U.S. Constitution and its checks and balances. Lack of partisan politics was actually a part of the constitutional intent of our republican democracy, and its presence has disasterously weakened the power and portence of impeachment.

The Republican Congress was so focused on nailing Clinton, they thwarted his attempts to take military action against Bin Laden and company. I think it is a terrible state when national defense and other important national issues are subordinated to the political interest of impeaching a president for an open fly.

The Republican Congress was so focused on nailing Clinton, they thwarted his attempts to take military action against Bin Laden and company. I think it is a terrible state when national defense and other important national issues are subordinated to the political interest of impeaching a president for an open fly.

The Republicans were overtly obsessed with "nailing" Clinton, but nobody thwarted the man from getting Bin Laden. He didn't want to. It's well known that he refused to take him when Syria "offered" and later waffled over air strikes that might have killed the terrorist leader. I don't particularly blame Clinton, though. Whoever was president would have put OBL on the back-burner. Terrorism just wasn't the issue then that it is now.

http://www.bmezine.com/news/guest/20070818.html

On the occasion of Karl Rove's resignation, an alleged friend of his adoptive father's recounts some fond memories of that father - plausibly, and accountably. And a bit of Karl's personality and behavior starts to add up.

Warning: it's a bit - unusual - sexually. Not porn, exactly, but maybe not for everybody's kids.

You are so clueless. I almost feel sorry for you, but not really. To begin, who defends this type of behavior? Then, who acts as if there is something criminal about it once it is uncovered to be related to a republican?

I am positive that you cannot even begin to recognize the hypocrisy in this.

But even beyond that, what the hell does this have anything to do with Rove's pending legal troubles?

The only thing I can think of is that you are so vain that you still have no idea why Clinton was impeached. Therefore, somehow in your mind this is equivalent.

I can certainly see folly in the pursuit of a sexual relationship, but irrespective of that folly. It is absolutely beyond me the symbolism of Clinton's Impeachment. The chief law enforcement officer of the land perjured himself in a court of law. I cannot even begin to express the incredulity of how ignorant most people are to this fact. It really matters not what he lied about. I could care less whether a president lies to the American people. Certain things may actually require the president do so, in certain situations. But to lie a in court of law when you are the chief law enforcement officer of te land.

BTW- This is why I say Clinton is a political god. I did not agree with much of his policy, but he was energetic and had charisma. And to convince a bunch of people that the impeachment was because of sexual indiscretions, masterful. Not saying I agree with it simply appreciating the p.r. spin on it.

However, I still fail to see the craze over Rove and your link illustrates beautifully. Have you nothing substantive? I mean other then innuendos and speculations?

Which brings me to count. Please provide the legitimate stuff against Rove.

Honestly, I am very willing to read legitimate references and decide for myself. But I really need to have the reference, everything I have ever seen was basically sensationalism. Nothing substantive.

I tend to agree. While I despise Rove and the sort of operator he represents, I'm not sure the man has ever done anything illegal...

Oh frabjous day...actually, I never really "got" the animosity towards Rove.
which makes the rest of your post nothing more than "hey, there's a bandwagon, i think i'll jump on it".
I take it he's suspected to have had a role in the Plame game, but not clear that anyone really knows that it was him (and not, say, Cheney).

I got the sense he was a favorite target just because he was the point man on political operations for the President, and he was a bit too good at his job. Perhaps he was behind some campaign of "dirty tricks" or something, but it seems to me he's more of a symbol of things people do not like about the way the GOP conducts itself politically.

Let's look at a few with similar political effect, then: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Murtha, Tom Daschle, George Soros, Sidney Blumenthal, Paul Begalia, James Carville (who you mentioned), Ted Kennedy and Al Gore.

Absolutely awesome. Give me a call after you've come down and slept it off.

Do you really think they never resort to such tactics?

Why don't you try asking a real question sometime?

Even if they're packaged as a crude expose'?

There's only so much I expect from an outlet like BME; it's easy enough to ignore the editorial commentary. For the most part, I have. But it's not just the BME story.

Louis Rove died just as Karl Rove was in the midst of launching the anti-gay issues campaign that was part of President Bush's re-election platform, the book's authors say.

"Many people on the extremist side of the right wing -- Phyllis Schlafly and her gay son, (State Sen.) Pete Knight and his gay son, Alan (Keyes) and his gay daughter -- this seems to be a pattern in extremist politics where you have people bashing the rights of gay people, and yet in their own families, we're there," said Thom Lynch, executive director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center in San Francisco.

Rove was close to his stepfather and didn't judge his sexuality, the authors say. (Goodrich (http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_249015607.html))

This issue has bounced around at least since September of last year, when the press covered the release of James Moore and Wayne Slater's The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power.

That Rove's father was gay was no surprise even then. In fact, this little bit from a local newspaper writer who knew Louis Rove on what the man was like serves more to rekindle the issue than anything else. Certainly, it adds some color, but it seems you're investing more in what you denounce about the BME article than I put into what it gives me to work with.

His parents’ marriage had ended on his nineteenth birthday—Christmas Day, 1969—when his father walked out. Then, shortly afterward, Rove received a second and more unexpected blow. In Illinois, he had dinner with an aunt and uncle, and, during a discussion of his parents’ divorce negotiations, they casually mentioned that the man he thought of as his father actually wasn’t. “I literally, I think, dropped my soda,” Rove told me, in one of three long interviews we had in his office in the West Wing of the White House. In a family of five siblings, he and an older brother were the children of another man, whose connection to his mother had been kept secret, at her insistence, all the time he’d been growing up. Among his friends in College Republicans, the story, to the extent that it circulated, took the form that he had been adopted—which is somehow not quite as upsetting .... I asked him if he’d ever found out who his real father is, and he said that he had, but didn’t meet him until many years later, when he was in his forties. He got in touch with the man, arranged to visit him, and was greeted with a chilly reception. Rove spoke of his adoptive father in a tone of fierce admiration, love, and loyalty, for, as he put it, “how selfless his love had been,” as shown by his willingness to play, persuasively, the part of a blood parent for two decades. The bond between Rove and his adoptive father became even more important, no doubt, after Rove’s mother committed suicide, in Reno, Nevada, in 1981. (Lemann (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact_lemann))

See, there are all sorts of interesting suggestions about Rove, but none of them are anything more than a tiny piece in a massive jigsaw puzzle. Every little piece, though, lets us see a little more about the man who has worked so hard to cast himself as a monster that these tidbits are actually restoring his human dimension. Even those of us who wish we had religion so we could take comfort in the fact that Rove will burn in Hell would like to know a little bit more about the man if only so that we can protect our children from others like him. Damning Rove is a ritual of futility. Stopping the menace is much more important. Exposing the selfless love of his father is always touching and sentimental, but considering that Rove would repay that debt by aiming to dehumanize the man presents a curious question. Just how does Karl look at the issue? Was this really for political gain? Is he truly that soulless? Or is there something more that will make Karl Rove's cruelty seem less cruel, more logical or even practical?

You might "despise Rove and the sort of operator he represents", Countezero, but why dismiss so indignantly any glimpse behind the veil of corruption? He may be a "dangerous and divisive idealogue", but apparently that you "have no time for him and his ilk" means you have no desire to understand his danger. What gives?

After all, if the story of his life changes the historical verdict from "evil" to merely "tragic", he deserves at least that, doesn't he?
_____________________

Notes:

Goodrich, Juliette. "Authors: Karl Rove's Stepfather Was Gay". KPIX TV, September 5, 2006. See http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_249015607.html

Lemann, Nicholas. "The Controller". The New Yorker, May 12, 2003. See http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact_lemann

Absolutely awesome. Give me a call after you've come down and slept it off.

So you deny these people are ideologues who play the same sort of politics Rove does with a juvenile retort? That doesn't surprise me. You've shown me that you're a committed ideologue yourself. Why should I expect you to be objective about people after your own persuasion?

Why don't you try asking a real question sometime?

I did, and apparently you refused to answer it. Here it is (in a slightly altered fashion) again: Do you really think the people I named or the Democrats don't resort to the same sort of tactics you apparently abhor? Now, before you answer or strain to formulate your thoughts, I ask you to consider the fact that they are fond of dubbing people things like racists, sexists and (my favorite) Nazis. Consider also that the Democrats learned to play the race game long before the Republicans learned to flip that card over to try to use it to their advantage (and what, if anything, have the Democrats ever done for Blacks?). Oh, and wasn't it the Democrats who successfully made an issue out of the apparent homosexuality of the disgraced Florida Congressman?

There's only so much I expect from an outlet like BME; it's easy enough to ignore the editorial commentary. For the most part, I have. But it's not just the BME story. ... Certainly, it adds some color, but it seems you're investing more in what you denounce about the BME article than I put into what it gives me to work with

I appreciate the fact you named some credible sources with the same information. That makes the claim much more believable, and given that Lemann reported it, I'm apt to accept its essential accuracy. However, you're still a long way from convincing me that the fact this many was gay is a legitimate point of debate here. In other words, my questioning the source was just one issue I had with the topic. Its appropriateness was another.

Exposing the selfless love of his father is always touching and sentimental, but considering that Rove would repay that debt by aiming to dehumanize the man presents a curious question. Just how does Karl look at the issue? Was this really for political gain? Is he truly that soulless? Or is there something more that will make Karl Rove's cruelty seem less cruel, more logical or even practical?

I'm curious exactly what you're accusing him of, so far as homosexuals and politics are concerned? The Republicans definitely attempted to use gay marriage as carrot to tempt their base to the polls, but part of me wants to shrug and say, so what? A lot of people don't believe in the concept of gay marriage, and thinking that way doesn't make them bigots...

You might "despise Rove and the sort of operator he represents", Countezero, but why dismiss so indignantly any glimpse behind the veil of corruption?

Because I don't think his feelings about his father are all that relevant. In putting this forward, you're attempting nothing less than some subtle form of psychoanalysis, and that's not something I'm interested in engaging in and trying to annunciate. It's too crude a weapon and we are much too removed from the subject to expect any accuracy with our attempts...

He may be a "dangerous and divisive idealogue", but apparently that you "have no time for him and his ilk" means you have no desire to understand his danger. What gives?

Rove is a political hack. I think the mystery begins and ends there. He was a Machiavellian, an electoral ends justify the electoral means kind of fellow. So lewd debate about his personal life and his familial history and the Oedipus complex and homophobic guilt and all these other chic (and ultimately petty) psychological melodramas are just a waste of time, if you ask me. You can't hope to quantify such intangible stuff, and frankly I think talking about it, debases the overall discourse. Go after the man on what you can prove, not what you feel...

So no, my remarks was not "evidence-free." Rather, it was evidence-full. Your "evidence" there is missing the word "Democrat", which your goofy hypothetical featured prominently. But I note that you do indeed, as I pointed out, file these assertions of yours as part of your reality - they have been accumulating at a rate of one or two per post addressed to me, and have now added up to quite the mutually reinforcing pile.
As my previous post makes clear, I don't disagree with many of your conclusions (the facist accusation is patently ridiculous, though). However, in this case, your method (your choice of material) is extremely poor. Apparently your idea of my motives and goals in posting that link varies considerably from my own. . And your buddy radicand I am positive that you cannot even begin to recognize the hypocrisy in this.

But even beyond that, what the hell does this have anything to do with Rove's pending legal troubles? similarly at sea.

To answer the question, nothing at all.

But here's a glimmer under the door, about the "fascist": it isn't actually ridiculous, but instead reasonable and accurate. What do you think fascisim looks like, if not these guys and their operation? Does fascism have to wear jackboots to be identified by professional journalists in this country? Here's a hint: what are some other names for "unitary executive", in ordinary language?

And the psychological backgrounds of the central figures in a fascistic government have often been of interest to the people cleaning up afterwards, picking through the mess for clues as to how not to have that happen again. It's probably idle curiosity, in this case, but you never know.

Meanwhile, in the Rove's Legacy department: a talking head on PBS informs me that W's original speechwriter - the one who coined the phrase about the smoking gun appearing as a mushroom cloud, among other contributions - has been working as a columnist at the Washington Post.

They must have thought they needed balance.

So you deny these people are ideologues who play the same sort of politics Rove does with a juvenile retort? That doesn't surprise me. You've shown me that you're a committed ideologue yourself. Why should I expect you to be objective about people after your own persuasion?

As you stated in your own post: "Let's look at a few with similar political effect, then."

They may be controversial, but they haven't a similar effect. If the Dems had that many equivalents of Rove, then Rove could not be so successful. Your penchant for sensationalist exaggeration is difficult.

I did, and apparently you refused to answer it. Here it is (in a slightly altered fashion) again: Do you really think the people I named or the Democrats don't resort to the same sort of tactics you apparently abhor? Now, before you answer or strain to formulate your thoughts, I ask you to consider the fact that they are fond of dubbing people things like racists, sexists and (my favorite) Nazis. Consider also that the Democrats learned to play the race game long before the Republicans learned to flip that card over to try to use it to their advantage (and what, if anything, have the Democrats ever done for Blacks?). Oh, and wasn't it the Democrats who successfully made an issue out of the apparent homosexuality of the disgraced Florida Congressman?

Did I say "difficult"? Your penchant for sensationalist exaggeration is ridiculous. The idea that people shouldn't call a racist a racist because it's impolite to call racists racist is just ridiculous. To compare that to smearing as unpatriotic and a terrorist sympathizer a man who gave three limbs in service to his country is downright offensive.

Furthermore, trying to equate the pursuit of sexual contact with minors and homosexuality is just sick.

I appreciate the fact you named some credible sources with the same information. That makes the claim much more believable, and given that Lemann reported it, I'm apt to accept its essential accuracy. However, you're still a long way from convincing me that the fact this many was gay is a legitimate point of debate here. In other words, my questioning the source was just one issue I had with the topic. Its appropriateness was another.

Are you suggesting that family life and upbringing have nothing to do with one's principles and behavior as an adult?

I'm curious exactly what you're accusing him of, so far as homosexuals and politics are concerned? The Republicans definitely attempted to use gay marriage as carrot to tempt their base to the polls, but part of me wants to shrug and say, so what? A lot of people don't believe in the concept of gay marriage, and thinking that way doesn't make them bigots.

Advocating either statutory or constitutional gender discrimination in this case qualifies as bigotry. I just think it's very interesting that Rove would devote so much effort to a policy that reduces someone he allegedly loves and respects to the status of second-class citizen.

Because I don't think his feelings about his father are all that relevant. In putting this forward, you're attempting nothing less than some subtle form of psychoanalysis, and that's not something I'm interested in engaging in and trying to annunciate. It's too crude a weapon and we are much too removed from the subject to expect any accuracy with our attempts.

Remember that liberals are often criticized for showing sympathy toward society's "criminal element". Often, this criticism implies that we should never seek to understand what we feel threatened by. If I'm going to exert that effort on behalf of convicted murderers and rapists, I would think a citizen who's not convicted of any crime deserves at least the same courtesy. To the other, your way is easier. Rove is an evil person who works on behalf of other evil people. Understanding them is not necessary. I should just do everything I can to keep my daughter away from Republicans, Christians, and other intended and willing beneficiaries of Rove's evil.

Wow. That's really easy. The plus side is that I don't need to bother figuring out what the hell you're trying to say.

Rove is a political hack. I think the mystery begins and ends there. He was a Machiavellian, an electoral ends justify the electoral means kind of fellow. So lewd debate about his personal life and his familial history and the Oedipus complex and homophobic guilt and all these other chic (and ultimately petty) psychological melodramas are just a waste of time, if you ask me. You can't hope to quantify such intangible stuff, and frankly I think talking about it, debases the overall discourse. Go after the man on what you can prove, not what you feel...

Such insight is amazing, Countezero. Such hack generalities demonstrate the problem of simply running with paltry superstition.

But then again, it's easier that way. Right?

Your "evidence" there is missing the word "Democrat", which your goofy hypothetical featured prominently. But I note that you do indeed, as I pointed out, file these assertions of yours as part of your reality - they have been accumulating at a rate of one or two per post addressed to me, and have now added up to quite the mutually reinforcing pile.

I made a comment based on the anecdotal evidence I have gathered in my many dealings with the pair of you. I wish I had something more concrete, but on a site such as this, anecdotes gathered through interactions are all we have to go on about each other. To reiterate and expound: I have never seen the two of you seriously criticize a Democrat. Never. Not once. In fact, whenever a Democrat is attacked or singled out, your usual trick is to rationalize it away or refer to other, more heinous acts committed by their brethren across the aisle. Examples of this, to prove "my reality," as you call it, is not self-invented, but does indeed receive and is altered by outside stimuli would be how Tiassa recently brought up Romney in a thread about John Edwards and how you recently harked to the ills of Ronald Reagan when being asked about misdeeds of Lyndon Johnson.

Elsewhere, your comments about fascism are typical, boring and do not merit a response. You've shown yourself incapable of bending your mind on that issue even a fraction of measurement, so I won't waste my time (or yours) trying to sway you on the point. That would be intellectual sadism, and sadism, like cock piercings, aren't something I care about...

Apparently your idea of my motives and goals in posting that link varies considerably from my own. . And your buddy radicand similarly at sea.

To answer the question, nothing at all.

But here's a glimmer under the door, about the "fascist": it isn't actually ridiculous, but instead reasonable and accurate. What do you think fascisim looks like, if not these guys and their operation? Does fascism have to wear jackboots to be identified by professional journalists in this country? Here's a hint: what are some other names for "unitary executive", in ordinary language?

And the psychological backgrounds of the central figures in a fascistic government have often been of interest to the people cleaning up afterwards, picking through the mess for clues as to how not to have that happen again. It's probably idle curiosity, in this case, but you never know.

Meanwhile, in the Rove's Legacy department: a talking head on PBS informs me that W's original speechwriter - the one who coined the phrase about the smoking gun appearing as a mushroom cloud, among other contributions - has been working as a columnist at the Washington Post.

They must have thought they needed balance.

Hint:

You have nothing thus out comes the tried and true argument of fascism. It is specious and tenuous, at best. Prior experience in the business world is not a prerequisite for fascism.

I have absolutely no idea where you are going with the last paragraph. Perhaps, you will do well to take that as some sort of pyrrhic victory and be done with the whole argument. You have nothing, but speculative, specious points.

Remember, Germany was a democracy before it quickly changed to Facism. One can go from one extreme to the other quite easily in the blink of an eye so don't be so naive as to think it cannot happen here, especially as our population gets dumber and dumber-er.

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

- In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

- N

I think he is organizing the 513s the and the dirty tricks groups.

He probably is, but is that illegal?

He probably is, but is that illegal?

Nothing's illegal once you reach a certain amount of power. Or better yet, it's illegal but there's not a damned thing us peons can do about it. Vote? Haha..

- N

Nothing's illegal once you reach a certain amount of power.

Tell that to Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton...

Tell that to Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton...

Yeah, and they'll laugh in your face. Impeachment and resignation aren't even hangnails to them. They still have their money, their power, their plans that they implemented during their presidency. Presidents aren't the ones with all the power in this country, they're merely scapegoats.

You do realize that Prescott Bush was Nixon's protege whom he groomed as a politician from an O.C. Reporter ad and later became governor of California, yes? And Slick Willy was G.H.W. Bush's cocaine-smuggling partner. The men behind the curtains never get punished, and when some little guy winds up getting close to it, they just get pardoned by their puppet.

So tell me, what dent did we do to Nixon and Clinton? Not a damned thing. Where's their frozen assets, their jail time, or better yet, the bullets in their heads?

- N

Yeah, and they'll laugh in your face. Impeachment and resignation aren't even hangnails to them.

I disagree. Politicians are men of enormous egos and they tend to obsess over their egos. Nixon and Clinton probably both are upset by how history will remember them and their historic legal troubles...

They still have their money, their power

You can't seize their assets because they committed a crime. And there's nothing the courts can do about their cult of popularity, which gives them their power. That comes from the adulation of the masses, who do silly things like buy their memoirs.

The men behind the curtains never get punished, and when some little guy winds up getting close to it, they just get pardoned by their puppet.

Clinton was never pardoned.

So tell me, what dent did we do to Nixon and Clinton?

I wouldn't underestimate the power of international humiliation and historic condemnation.

or better yet, the bullets in their heads?

They should have been killed for their crimes? Wow, you're ... out there.

They should have been killed for their crimes? Wow, you're ... out there.

Yep, they should be, and I'm not referring to just the crimes they were found guilty of. Hell, just Clinton alone has a long enough rap sheet that if he were a regular citizen with no political power, our "justice" system would have had him dead by now.

Personally, every lying sack of [bleep] politician should be dead. :)

I won't shed a tear if D.C. suddenly ceases to exist.

Out with the old, in with the new, even if it's just new dogs with the same set of fleas. Our incompetent politicians have been in power too long -- there needs to be a limit on their terms of office, not re-elected because they control everything or people know no other name than theirs. Heck, even with limited terms such as the presidency, we've had the Bushes and Clinton's in power going on 32 years now once Hillary gets elected for at least one term.

- N

I made a comment based on the anecdotal evidence I have gathered in my many dealings with the pair of you. And I made the observation that the anecdotal evidence you have accumulated consists (almost?) entirely of previous such comments. You believe what you say, and file it as evidence in support of what you say later. It accumulates.
To reiterate and expound: I have never seen the two of you seriously criticize a Democrat. Never. Not once. The last two or three times you said that, I went to the trouble of supplying a list and quotes. Hillary and Bill were both on it, Kerry, and Truman (W's main rival for the banality of evil in the Presidency) of course, offhand, a couple of others. To no effect, obviously.

I blamed Bill C for NAFTA, for example - even though it dates to Reagan, through Bush. I have called him a reactionary conservative, compromising, businessman's President, responsible for wrecking (through Hillary) national health care policy in the US.

It so happens that a set of really bad guys has taken over governance of my country, recently. It so happens - and there are reasons for this, but also simple luck - that these bad guys are Republican and overtly, self-definedly, even pugnaciously so. It has been hard for the generally powerless and spineless Beltway Democrats to get their proper and due slamming, while this unprecedentedly malign cabal was taking malfeasance to another level entirely.

But if "spineless" and "compromising" on crucial gutcheck issues are not serious criticisms in your world, I assure you they are in mine. And I don't think I've ever used them on a Republican politician - not that I keep careful track.

Meanwhile, Rove's Republican affiliations are front and center, central to his influence and his legacy. And his use of God, Guns, and Gays to get the Republican vote out could very well have had its roots in his own sincere beliefs, in theory. But it didn't. And this flexibility - the advantage of having nothing personal at stake - was a key to his success. But that all rode on his insider status - his membership in the band of brothers, the fasces that brace each other: it was that status that allowed him freedom from the restrictions and risks he helped place on lesser men. He could have his Gannons (it he was indeed among the clients), his estranged wives, his general agnosticism, his aversion to physical risk or military service, his grasping and miserly dealings, and not risk the consequences his own propaganda and manipulations laid on others.

You may blame Democrats for doing specific things you don't like, but that hardly qualifies you as being unbiased.

Let's try another tact. Talk about the positive things the Republican party or its presidents have done. Can you do that?

You may blame Democrats for doing specific things you don't like, but that hardly qualifies you as being unbiased. That's beside the point.

The point was that I have supplied you with counterexamples to this assertion of yours as it has applied to me (and it has applied to just me, in the past) I have never seen the two of you seriously criticize a Democrat. Never. Not once. before, more than once.

Yet you repeat it. And I would bet money that you will repeat it again, in a few weeks maybe, slightly altered language next time. I could quote paragraphs of condemnation of Truman from this forum, as scathing as I can write - I do sort of hate Truman, a stronger emotion than the contempt I have for W and his supporters - and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to your private reality. In your private reality, the assertions you have made about my lack of criticism of Democrats have been filed as mutually supportive facts of the real world.

And this private reality is what I am to "qualify as unbiased" in, by saying good things about the Republican Party and its presidents. As if failure to do that would demonstrate that my bias is Party based.

It has been a long time since the Republican Party did anything worth doing, or fielded an even marginally acceptable candidate for President. Eisenhower would have been the last one. I can say nice things about Gerald Ford, and his wife, but he was an accident. Reagan did enormous harm, not that it was his fault exactly in his senility, and W&Co are mostly extensions of Reagan's administration without the Congressional checks - the culmination of the Reagan presidency, and even worse for the lack of opposition. That leaves Nixon before Ford, and HW Bush after Reagan: he did refuse to invade Iraq, but the mess he made over there otherwise, his CIA, oil, and Ivy League fascist connections, Reaganomics continued, and his wife - I suspect a central figure in US politics for twenty + years now, the matriarch of the Bush royal family - preclude favorable reviews.

There isn't much one can do about this. The Reps are in a nasty slump, for reasonable national politics. No improvement on the horizon, either. Again, reality has a bias here - we must follow, or take leave of it.

Karl Rove should have been forced from office, made a pariah, years ago. The modern Republicans did not do that. Case rested.

That's beside the point.

The point was that I have supplied you with counterexamples to this assertion of yours as it has applied to me (and it has applied to just me, in the past) before, more than once.

Yet you repeat it. And I would bet money that you will repeat it again, in a few weeks maybe, slightly altered language next time. I could quote paragraphs of condemnation of Truman from this forum, as scathing as I can write - I do sort of hate Truman, a stronger emotion than the contempt I have for W and his supporters - and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to your private reality. In your private reality, the assertions you have made about my lack of criticism of Democrats have been filed as mutually supportive facts of the real world.

And this private reality is what I am to "qualify as unbiased" in, by saying good things about the Republican Party and its presidents. As if failure to do that would demonstrate that my bias is Party based.

It has been a long time since the Republican Party did anything worth doing, or fielded an even marginally acceptable candidate for President. Eisenhower would have been the last one. I can say nice things about Gerald Ford, and his wife, but he was an accident. Reagan did enormous harm, not that it was his fault exactly in his senility, and W&Co are mostly extensions of Reagan's administration without the Congressional checks - the culmination of the Reagan presidency, and even worse for the lack of opposition. That leaves Nixon before Ford, and HW Bush after Reagan: he did refuse to invade Iraq, but the mess he made over there otherwise, his CIA, oil, and Ivy League fascist connections, Reaganomics continued, and his wife - I suspect a central figure in US politics for twenty + years now, the matriarch of the Bush royal family - preclude favorable reviews.

There isn't much one can do about this. The Reps are in a nasty slump, for reasonable national politics. No improvement on the horizon, either. Again, reality has a bias here - we must follow, or take leave of it.

Karl Rove should have been forced from office, made a pariah, years ago. The modern Republicans did not do that. Case rested.


So from your grandiose opinion of yourself over how extremely unbiased you are, I am taking from the people you dislike (though unbiased clearly in favor of greater hatred of republicans seemingly simply because they are republicans) that you are essentially anti-American and anti-capitalist.

Exactly how old are you? Because it is clear that you have not truly thought things out. Of course, that curse is not limited to the youth on this forum. Nor does it care whether some are highly educated or not I am thinking of Michael, who writes some of the most asinine things I have ever read here.

Remember something before all of your ideology bites you in the ass: Ideas have consequences.

That's beside the point.

No, it's exactly the point. The fact that you think the Democrats do a few things you don't like now and again, paired with the fact that you occasionally point these things out (if pressed), are not powerful credentials for someone who claims to be an objective critic.

The point was that I have supplied you with counterexamples to this assertion of yours as it has applied to me (and it has applied to just me, in the past) before, more than once.

Right, and the key point of my initial claim is the word "seriously." Sure, you occasionally rifle a ball or two through the sails of the Democrats who aren't liberal enough for you, but you never seriously criticize them. And typically, whenever you offer up your slight critiques of the Donkeys, you couch them within posts that spend a lot more inches on how much worse their counterparts across the aisle are. Since you probably think I am making all of this up, a perfect example of this would be how quickly you wanted to talk about Reagan or Bush when being pressed on the ills of Lyndon Johnson in a thread about intelligence several weeks ago. For you, it always comes back to the Republicans. Always.

Yet you repeat it. And I would bet money that you will repeat it again, in a few weeks maybe, slightly altered language next time.

I probably will, because I doubt you will change between now and then. You've shown yourself time and again to be incapable of adjusting from your fixed positions, admitting errors or seeing logic in any point you don't agree with.

I could quote paragraphs of condemnation of Truman from this forum.

I haven't seen them. I can only base my knowledge of you on my dealings with you.

It has been a long time since the Republican Party did anything worth doing, or fielded an even marginally acceptable candidate for President. Eisenhower would have been the last one. I can say nice things about Gerald Ford, and his wife, but he was an accident. Reagan did enormous harm, not that it was his fault exactly in his senility, and W&Co are mostly extensions of Reagan's administration without the Congressional checks - the culmination of the Reagan presidency, and even worse for the lack of opposition. That leaves Nixon before Ford, and HW Bush after Reagan: he did refuse to invade Iraq, but the mess he made over there otherwise, his CIA, oil, and Ivy League fascist connections, Reaganomics continued, and his wife - I suspect a central figure in US politics for twenty + years now, the matriarch of the Bush royal family - preclude favorable reviews.

Right, so there we have it. Nothing of note for more than 50 years. Yes, you are quite the objective critic. Thanks for illustrating my point for me. I knew, if given enough rope, you would...

Again, reality has a bias here - we must follow, or take leave of it.

You mean reality as you see it...

I haven't seen them. I can only base my knowledge of you on my dealings with you. Which you have invented, as follows: - The fact that you think the Democrats do a few things you don't like now and again, paired with the fact that you occasionally point these things out (if pressed), are not powerful credentials for someone who claims to be an objective critic. They are, however, complete refutations of your typically delusionary assertions.

Meanwhile, for illustration: find a quote in which I claim to be objective. For that matter, find a quote in which I talk about such things in any context except responding to your BS. Threads have topics, Count - try to bear down a little.
Right, and the key point of my initial claim is the word "seriously." So the key point of your claim is some silly and idiosyncratic presumption based on no information (you "haven't seen them" - which is unlikely, btw, since you were in some of those threads). Typical.
Since you probably think I am making all of this up, a perfect example of this would be how quickly you wanted to talk about Reagan or Bush when being pressed on the ills of Lyndon Johnson in a thread about intelligence several weeks ago. ? IIRC, which I probably don't, because I don't share your focus here, that thread was what convinced me, erroneously, that you were being deliberately dishonest with a pretended obsession over "Democrats" and my "partisan" nature, as a means of derailing actual discussion (as here, unfortunately) - hence my irritated rantings the next time the subject of Johnson came up.

I already apoligized for that - I was taken in (as I believe others have been) by your ability to write complete sentences.
Right, so there we have it. Nothing of note for more than 50 years. You could always try actually making your point, by noting something that fits your original demand, something obvious that I could only have overlooked from bias and partisanship.

You might actually find something you could spin like that, you know, if you tried - because the following is true of me: I forget what party various Presidents and other politicians belonged to, sometimes. I have to look them up. That's how much I care about this idiotic issue of yours.
So from your grandiose opinion of yourself over how extremely unbiased you are, I am taking from the people you dislike (though unbiased clearly in favor of greater hatred of republicans seemingly simply because they are republicans) that you are essentially anti-American and anti-capitalist. I am solidly pro-American and very pro-capitalist. But don't feel bad: your odds of guessing wrong there, on two issues figured independently, were 75% - since you had absolutely no relevant information to go on.

When you get tired of making mistakes like that, go back and examine your assumptions.

My guess is you'll find them directly connected to Karl Rove's campaign strategies. Focus the debate on whether the opponent is "pro-American" or not, whether they are "liberal" or not, whether they are "pro-capitalist" or "support the troops" or "soft on Communism/crime/terrorism/drugs", and you win. You win, that is, elections - power.

You don't "win" debates that way, or advance discussions, or teach anyone anything, or learn anything yourself. So what's your goal, here?

Meanwhile, for illustration: find a quote in which I claim to be objective. For that matter, find a quote in which I talk about such things in any context except responding to your BS.

That might be tough. You're shown yourself a clever little cunt on many occasions, so it's entirely possible you may have never actually used the word "objective" in a post, but by my reckoning, it's always suggested that you are objective (and in your own mind) operating on a higher plan, while everyone else, that is the people who you mistakingly think are little peons cowering at your knee, are "dishonest" and biased hacks. After all, if they weren't they would agree with, wouldn't they, your Lordship? If you're curious why I think this about you, consider you consistently claim to possess the facts or the truth of something, no matter what the topic, regardless of who posts what to refute your claims. You also offer little quips like, "The only vantage point is cold reason," as if reason is something you and you alone employ, while the rest of us bumble around and fling mud at canvas.

Threads have topics, Count - try to bear down a little.

This from the captain of esoteric rants!

That thread was what convinced me, erroneously, that you were being deliberately dishonest with a pretended obsession over "Democrats" and my "partisan" nature, as a means of derailing actual discussion (as here, unfortunately) - hence my irritated rantings the next time the subject of Johnson came up.

You're the one who derails discussions with aforementioned esoteric rants and closed-minded, lopsided arguments. In the thread in question, the one where you apparently gained your appreciation for my dishonesty, I spent most of time parroting primary sources from a nonfiction book. You, of course, had no sources, beyond your usual unquestionable wit.

You could always try actually making your point, by noting something that fits your original demand, something obvious that I could only have overlooked from bias and partisanship.

Why struggle? You made my point for me. In more than 50 years of American politics you failed to mention one positive contribution made by Republicans or Republican presidents. That speaks volumes. Now, to be fair, it is possible that the Elephants and their leaders really didn't do anything of note in all that time. Yes, it is possible. But is it likely? Is it believable that human nature and partisan politics are that monolithic and easy to classify? No, it's not. Sorry. So failing being an ignorant ass, which I know you're not, I'm left to conclude you're just a another person trapped in a bubble of bias that is entirely their own make. Congratulations. I hope there is enough air in there so that your ideology doesn't prevent the flow of oxygen to your otherwise impressive brain...

Remember, Germany was a democracy before it quickly changed to Facism.

- N

Glad you mentioned this issue. Since the shrubs and their minions have taken over the Republican party, I am increasingly concerned about the demonization of all things not in line with shrub Jr. or the Republican Party line....good news, the expiration of juniors term people seem to be waking up...time will tell.

I am solidly pro-American and very pro-capitalist. But don't feel bad: your odds of guessing wrong there, on two issues figured independently, were 75% - since you had absolutely no relevant information to go on.

When you get tired of making mistakes like that, go back and examine your assumptions.

My guess is you'll find them directly connected to Karl Rove's campaign strategies. Focus the debate on whether the opponent is "pro-American" or not, whether they are "liberal" or not, whether they are "pro-capitalist" or "support the troops" or "soft on Communism/crime/terrorism/drugs", and you win. You win, that is, elections - power.

You don't "win" debates that way, or advance discussions, or teach anyone anything, or learn anything yourself. So what's your goal, here?

My but aren't we arrogant, that's okay it makes everything a little more intriguing.

BTW-You have yet to produce solid evidence of why Rove would spend time in jail.

Moving on to your response; before fully responding I must say I may have jumped the gun on the anti-capitalist statement, though I would not be surprised if it turns out to be true.

I am wondering what is your problem with Truman, Bush and Clinton (Bill).

I am not campaigning for anything, so I could give a flying hoot over how you win them. And, given your politics I would not take advice from you anyway. But, perhaps someday you could bore me with ideas of how to win?!?

I have no idea what mistakes you are referring? However, whatever connections you are referring to Rove are patently paranoid. I have no clue what his campaign strategies are, nor do I care. What I vote for is ideas and I was deeply concerned when Bush 2000 stressed an ownership society and got less than 50% of the vote. That to me speaks volumes about the public at large. I do not expect you to understand, but maybe there is some common ground with that thought. The best person to fit my political ideas now is Ron Paul, but we split on the war. That split is less on principles than a pragmatic reason (can't believe I said that).

My goal is for you to actually provide substantive evidence of the rhetoric you spew and to see if you will actually provide your insights into your "dislike" of Truman, Bush, and Clinton. Thus far, my experience with this type of dialogue has been unsuccessful. Typically, what has happened is that you simply just want to make the accusation without any repercussions. Thusly, it ends up that you somehow attempt to turn it around and tell me to do the providing when I am not the one making the accusations.

Incidentally you may deny this, but the last 60 years of political debate have been primarily based on affiliations. This has typically favored democrats, who were successful in conning people into thinking that republicans are unintelligent, or whatever adjective you care to place. I will say that republicans have helped the cause in two ways. First, in some cases the accusation was true. Second, the republicans refused to fight back. Perhaps correctly so, given that this type of debate is senseless and moronic. However, as time as progressed and the mass have been dumbed down a good bit, this type of tactic is now employed by republicans. Hence the short sound bites that make the statements you have mentioned. Politics should be about ideas not power. Most presidents act in this manner, including the ones opposite your political preference.

I am not saying I agree with it, as I long for a Lincoln/Douglas debate. I just think such a debate is not forthcoming for awhile. Only God knows why.

Now, to be fair, it is possible that the Elephants and their leaders really didn't do anything of note in all that time. Yes, it is possible. But is it likely? Is it believable that human nature and partisan politics are that monolithic and easy to classify? No, it's not. Sorry. There are now three people in this discussion who have failed to come up with major, "notable" (not part of the original request), and commendable deeds of US governance accomplished by Republicans (as a group, or in the person of a President) since Eisenhower, not counting Ford.

I am one of them, and in my failure I reviewed a bit the field of possibility - major fine accomplishments of Nixon, say, or Reagan (where the collapse of the Soviet empire was not overlooked, but dismissed earlier), or the Republican Congress under Clinton's presidency - do they get credit for the budget successes?

I also mentioned that it ought to be fairly easy to come up something I've overlooked, if there's much around, because Party designation is not much of a concern of mine - I might easily have missed something, just by forgetting that Ford was a Republican when his wife got the billboard laws passed, or Phil Gramm had switched parties before he did something great about the budget, or some mental glitch like that.

I fully expected to be handed at least one or two - as evidence of my rabid partisan denigration of Republican efforts rather than my lack of interest in the topic and faulty memory, of course.

But apparently it's much easier to namecall and so forth than actually come up with obvious, blatant, indisputable Republican accomplishments in the governance line, of recent years.

Who'd a thunk it?

What have these guys been up to, since Carter got pounded? Do you suppose Rove's resignation is a clue, about that?
Moving on to your response; before fully responding I must say I may have jumped the gun on the anti-capitalist statement, though I would not be surprised if it turns out to be true. I would. (You were wrong about the anti-American stance as well, don't forget). But I have an advantage: I know what I'm talking about, with regard to my own nature and ideologies and personal opinions. You don't.
Incidentally you may deny this, but the last 60 years of political debate have been primarily based on affiliations. This has typically favored democrats, who were successful in conning people into thinking that republicans are unintelligent, or whatever adjective you care to place. I will say that republicans have helped the cause in two ways. First, in some cases the accusation was true. Second, the republicans refused to fight back. I have seen the changeover to simple power struggle based on Party affiliation, and it was brought in by the Newt Gingrich Republicans in the wake of Reagan's trouncing of Carter - some more rightwing Democrats, forced to choose sides based on Party rather than political thinking and unable to recruit Republicans to their causes, left the Party weakened by internal dabate and joined the Republican Party. Before that, there were very "conservative" Democrats in Congress, and a great deal of non-Partisan debate. There were Democrats to the right of most Republicans, Republicans to the left - on some issues - of many Democrats, etc.

Those Republicans were purged - by Newt, Delay, et al - and some Democrats changed parties. And here we are.

The idea that the Republicans ever "refused to fight back" is just silly. Which Republicans were those? Nixon's? Reagan's?

Who are these three people you speak of?

I fully expected to be handed at least one or two - as evidence of my rabid partisan denigration of Republican efforts rather than my lack of interest in the topic and faulty memory, of course.

Your lack of interest? You've been a gleeful participant in this thread for days now. I doubt this "faulty memory" business, too. You're a smart person, forever providing an informed and nuanced opinion on subjects. Yet, when challenged, you suddenly lose control of your facultiess?

But apparently it's much easier to namecall and so forth than actually come up with obvious, blatant, indisputable Republican accomplishments in the governance line, of recent years.

You were the person asked to come up with accomplishments. You failed to do so. Now you're shifting the burden back to the person/people who asked you in the first place? That's a dubious tactic, but having already proved my point about your obvious bias, I'm willing to play along. Here's a few I came up with off the cuff:

1. Nixon's trip to China
2. Reagan's bombing of Libya.
3. Bush's defense of Kuwait.
4. Regan's diplomacy with the Soviets, so far as arms control is concerned.

Now, I'm sure you'll attempt to "contextualize" these in order to besmirch them, muddy their achievements or assign them more negatives and positives. Have at it...

1. Nixon's trip to China
2. Reagan's bombing of Libya.
3. Bush's defense of Kuwait.
4. Regan's diplomacy with the Soviets, so far as arms control is concerned.

Now, I'm sure you'll attempt to "contextualize" these in order to besmirch them, muddy their achievements Yep. I had considered a couple of those, and couldn't fit them into the "accomplishments" file.

2) Reagan's intended, aimed, military rocketing of civilians in Libya was an atrocity, an act of terrorism less excusable than the worst of the Hezbollah rocketings. And it failed to kill Qaddafi, its target. But we see it shortlisted among Repuiblican accomplishments of the past 50 years, with no hint of sarcasm or irony, by people who ostensibly intend to praise and commend Republican governance. ?

3) Bush's "defense" of Kuwait consisted of setting up Kuwait for invasion in the course of manipulations designed to bring down Saddam. In consequence, Kuwait was invaded and wrecked but not reformed: its former incredibly corrupt and fundie Islamic management was set even more firmly in power, and it has been breeding terrorism, profiteering, and corrupting other people's political systems (in small ways) ever since.

And Saddam was not brought down. Bush's strategies failed, at the cost of years of extreme misery for the people of Iraq and others.

But we do note that the war effort itself was competently managed, at least up until the demobilization and aftercare of the US wounded, poisoned, etc - perhaps evidence that a Republican executive branch can competently manage part of something, anything, is worth putting into the 50 year highlight reel ? That is hardly a compliment.

4) Reagan's arms control "diplomacy" with the Soviets created an arms race out of nothing, mostly at US expense, not only risking escalation and accident but piling so much self-increasing debt on the US it took several years just to get the accumulation rate under control. The legacy of that kind of "diplomacy" - scaring the American people to justify rampant misappropriation of taxpayers' monies and unwarranted expansion of federal power - is with us now in both ideology and actual personnel.

1) Left this one for last: Nixon's trip to China was a mess, in most lights, but the effort itself was not wrong. He may have taken the US to the Chinese laundry for cleanout, and he may have been so desperate for favorable legacy he didn't mind bending the US over to get it, but the general effort was something that had to be made, and he made it. So on second thought (I had dismissed that as "unfavorable", before) we have a winner - my bias against Nixon's administration did lead to my undercrediting of that event.

Now: do we conclude that I am biased against Nixon's administration because I see it was labeled "Republican" ?

No evidence of that. Other, more likely possibilities are obvious.

As with Karl Rove, exemplary Republican: the name acquires the attributes of the thing, eventually, not the reverse.

Yep. I had considered a couple of those, and couldn't fit them into the "accomplishments" file.


No surprise there.

2) Reagan's intended, aimed, military rocketing of civilians in Libya was an atrocity, an act of terrorism less excusable than the worst of the Hezbollah rocketings. And it failed to kill Qaddafi, its target. But we see it shortlisted among Repuiblican accomplishments of the past 50 years, with no hint of sarcasm or irony, by people who ostensibly intend to praise and commend Republican governance?


Reagan's strikes ended Libya's sponsorship of terrorism and boxed a madman in for more than two decades. It also laid the foundation, which the current president took advantage of, to pursuade the country to abandon its nuclear ambitions and begin to open its society. So no, there was no irony in my tone.

3) Bush's "defense" of Kuwait consisted of setting up Kuwait for invasion in the course of manipulations designed to bring down Saddam.


Bush set "up Kuwait for invasion?" When and how did he do that? I'm also curious what you think he was doing to bring Saddam down prior to the original Gulf War?

Its former incredibly corrupt and fundie Islamic management was set even more firmly in power, and it has been breeding terrorism, profiteering, and corrupting other people's political systems (in small ways) ever since.


Would you provide some proof of this, please?

And Saddam was not brought down.


No, he wasn't. He chose not to remove him for obvious reasons. Are you criticizing Bush for leaving him in place, because if you are, I think that's an odd position to take for someone who is so against the current war?

Bush's strategies failed, at the cost of years of extreme misery for the people of Iraq and others.

Up until the current debacle, the misery of the Iraqis has always stemmed from one man: Saddam Hussein. He attacked Kuwait and brought the sanctions down on his own head. Nobody made him do anything.

But we do note that the war effort itself was competently managed, at least up until the demobilization and aftercare of the US wounded, poisoned, etc - perhaps evidence that a Republican executive branch can competently manage part of something, anything, is worth putting into the 50 year highlight reel ? That is hardly a compliment.


That's your subjective take on the matter.

Regardless, that's not what I was talking about. The defense of Kuwait was important for the precedent it set, in that it put an end to Arab or Middle Eastern nations "being allowed" to invade one another, as had been allowed to happen from the 60's up to the 90's. The war, essentially, solidified the region and established an international status quo, albeit a shaky one. That, I think, is important.

4) Reagan's arms control "diplomacy" with the Soviets created an arms race out of nothing, mostly at US expense, not only risking escalation and accident but piling so much self-increasing debt on the US it took several years just to get the accumulation rate under control.


So you deny he helped bankrupt the Soviets by not blinking at them and forcing hard talks in places like Iceland?

The legacy of that kind of "diplomacy" - scaring the American people to justify rampant misappropriation of taxpayers' monies and unwarranted expansion of federal power - is with us now in both ideology and actual personnel.


That's the typical lefty appreciation of the man and his era. Just for fun, I encourage you to explain how you think he achieved what you claim he achieved.

1) Left this one for last: Nixon's trip to China was a mess, in most lights, but the effort itself was not wrong. He may have taken the US to the Chinese laundry for cleanout, and he may have been so desperate for favorable legacy he didn't mind bending the US over to get it, but the general effort was something that had to be made, and he made it. So on second thought (I had dismissed that as "unfavorable", before) we have a winner - my bias against Nixon's administration did lead to my undercrediting of that event. ... Now: do we conclude that I am biased against Nixon's administration because I see it was labeled "Republican"?


Well, it was Republican. And your applause is so lukewarm I wouldn't want to put my foot in it, were it a bath. As usual, even when conceding a point, you jab away with clauses that undermine the strength of the original point, a neat trick which recasts what you're actually agreeing to and couches it in terms entirely of your own liking. Bravo. Too bad I (and others) notice it.

As with Karl Rove, exemplary Republican: the name acquires the attributes of the thing, eventually, not the reverse.

Karl Rove is one Republican. You've nominated him as "exemplary" in what I can only assume is an attempt to mock him and the party. Part of that equation is a subtle form of guily by association, a rhetorical trick you never seem to tire of.
For the record, I don't see Rove as "exemplary," nor do a lot of other people. Even the Republicans grew wary of the man and applauded his shuffle offstage (see the Times editorials written about him by former Bush staffers).

Karl Rove is one Republican. You've nominated him as "exemplary" in what I can only assume is an attempt to mock him and the party. Part of that equation is a subtle form of guily by association, a rhetorical trick you never seem to tire of. It's not guilt by association - it's continual and defended and deliberate association with guilt. I didn't associate Karl Rove with the inner, controlling, power circles of the Republican Party - they did.

For the record, I don't see Rove as "exemplary," nor do a lot of other people. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy arrives. We saw this before, with Delay and Abramoff, before them with Gingrich, all along with the various evangelists and intellectuals and public figures who provide the public face of Republicanism until their disgrace: at which time they aren't really Republicans, or not exemplary of real Republicansim, or something.

Can you name ten more important, influential, specifically and overtly Republican individuals in US political life over the past ten years, than Karl Rove? Five? Three?

That man and a very few others molded the Republican Party that you see. His power was granted him by the general consensus of Republican honchos, and he has been sitting at the right hand and in the inner circle of possibly the most powerful Republican President since Lincoln - one whose election was owed largely to him.

They didn't all like him - but then they don't all like each other. As long as he won, he had their support.

That speaks ill of the modern Republican Party, true. But what can you do? The leadership of the Republican Party did not have to give that man an overriding influence in Republican character and candidacy, an office in the White House with a security clearance, and a decisive, central role in the formulation of Party strategies and policies.

The name acquires the attributes of the thing. So attention to the thing, not just the image, name, etc, might have been a good idea, back a few years.

Is there a reason you avoided my questions?

It's not guilt by association - it's continual and defended and deliberate association with guilt. I didn't associate Karl Rove with the inner, controlling, power circles of the Republican Party - they did.

Agreed. But I believe you have attempted to paint him as a sort of everyday Republican, when in reality, he seems to only represent the "inner, controlling, power circles" you mentioned. Those circles are (or were) undoubtedly wielding mighty influence, but that's waning now for obvious reasons. Chief among them, the rank and file don't like Rove and are able to exert more influence on the subject now that the man has lost an election for the party (it's tough to fire a winner, you must admit). In conjunction, think the party is starting to listen more to those outside the circle, as it's hard not to see what Rove and his ilk are. Again, winning can serve as a powerful set of blinders.

But then again, the local Congressional race here has begun with the Republican nominee behaving in a way I think you'd find typical (angry rhetoric, cheap personal attacks, a nauseating focus on gays and church) so who knows? Perhaps, Rove's influence, through the minions he left behind, continues?

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy arrives. We saw this before, with Delay and Abramoff, before them with Gingrich, all along with the various evangelists and intellectuals and public figures who provide the public face of Republicanism until their disgrace: at which time they aren't really Republicans, or not exemplary of real Republicansim, or something.

I find that a confusing argument. The same "fallacy" could be applied to Democrats and their intellectuals and secularists, too. I guess the issue is who and what really represents the two parties, which isn't as easy a question to answer as first appears, and isn't one I'd like to try to answer based on something as petty as the "public face," something typically assigned by the media.

Can you name ten more important, influential, specifically and overtly Republican individuals in US political life over the past ten years, than Karl Rove? Five? Three?

What difference does that make? You named two: Gingrich and Delay. I'd add men like Ken Melmann, Trent Lott and Phil Graham, just for starters...

His power was granted him by the general consensus of Republican honchos, and he has been sitting at the right hand and in the inner circle of possibly the most powerful Republican President since Lincoln - one whose election was owed largely to him.

That's laughable. Other than starting the war in Iraq, Bush has been an abject failure as a chief executive who gets what he wants. He is a man who can't get any of his policies (other than those concerning the wars) taken seriously. The laundry list of his domestic defeats is long and impressive. Items such as Social Security and tax reform have all come to naught. He couldn't even keep his tax cuts permanent. Yes, that's some powerful president all right...

They didn't all like him - but then they don't all like each other. As long as he won, he had their support.

Probably so. As I touched on above, politics is a zero sum game that encourages such nasty alliances. But I would argue they occur on both sides of the aisle with equal fervor, something you would probably disagree with...

That's laughable. Other than starting the war in Iraq, Bush has been an abject failure as a chief executive who gets what he wants. He is a man who can't get any of his policies (other than those concerning the wars) taken seriously. The laundry list of his domestic defeats is long and impressive. Items such as Social Security and tax reform have all come to naught. He couldn't even keep his tax cuts permanent. Yes, that's some powerful president all right... From one point of view, he just fucked up - all the power in the world won't keep you from trying to take Moscow, if you fancy yourself Napoleon.

From another point of view, W&Co have just had one of the most successful runs of any administration in history. They got almost everything they wanted, after all - a well-governed country not being much of a concern, for them.

From no point of view was W a weak President - he had the full backing of the Congress and the Court and the Military, no restrictions on borrowing or spending, no real opposition, and a perfect crisis to use as cover for almost anything he wanted to do.

How many Presidents could have launched a full scale land war in Asia within their first two years in office, merely on their own say so?
What difference does that make? You named two: Gingrich and Delay. I'd add men like Ken Melmann, Trent Lott and Phil Graham, just for starters... Graham? Lott is debatable - I would rank him lower than Rove, on a power scale - but Melmann ? Rove exemplifies Republicanism as we see it in action these past ten or fifteen years. His tactics, his policies, his approach to governance, his personality and priorities and candidate preferences, have made their mark and shaped that Party. Who more? Newt and Tom maybe, hard to think of another.

Since you plan to continue to avoid my questions, I might as well tackle a few things that raised my eyebrows.

From another point of view, W&Co have just had one of the most successful runs of any administration in history. They got almost everything they wanted, after all - a well-governed country not being much of a concern, for them.

I still wish you would show me where W&Co have had one of "the most successful runs of any administration in history." I think quite the opposite. I think people will look back 20 years from now and see nothing but failure after failure, and whenever W&Co did get what they wanted, their policy usually failed in epic fashion.

From no point of view was W a weak President - he had the full backing of the Congress and the Court and the Military, no restrictions on borrowing or spending, no real opposition, and a perfect crisis to use as cover for almost anything he wanted to do.

Really? Like pass social security reform or abolish the IRS...

How many Presidents could have launched a full scale land war in Asia within their first two years in office, merely on their own say so?

I don't know (ask your buddy Lyndon Johnson). How many presidents have had a large-scale attack on the American mainland to deal with and respond to?

Rove exemplifies Republicanism as we see it in action these past ten or fifteen years. His tactics, his policies, his approach to governance, his personality and priorities and candidate preferences, have made their mark and shaped that Party.

I think Rove exemplifies a segment of Republicansim and it just so happens that segment is running the party and couldn't be wrested from control until they had an electoral meltdown.

I still wish you would show me where W&Co have had one of "the most successful runs of any administration in history." In their own apparent terms, can you show me where they have not succeeded at least in part? They are filthy rich now, well connected, all but immune from taxation or other obligations, triumphant over their enemies, and set up for a long run of planetary dominance.

Not everything worked perfectly for them. Iraq even, let alone Iran, is not yet firmly in hand, and the Central Asian leverage (along with the war contracting profits, of course) will have to assauge the pain for a while yet. The Venezuelan coup is still pending, but may not work out. The pipeline struggle has proven Russia a worthy foe, and China a skilled player.

Domestically, they almost got their hands on the Social Security gravy train, and made bigger steps toward freeing themselves from the IRS than any before them. That isn't failure. And the little black clouds of subpeona, on the horizon, may never actually rain.

Overall, who since the Robber Barons have pulled off a heist like this one? Not even the Robber Barons raked it in as Exxon has, and will in the probable future.

I think Rove exemplifies a segment of Republicansim and it just so happens that segment is running the party and couldn't be wrested from control until they had an electoral meltdown. That "segment" is still running the Republican Party, meltdown or no meltdown. The alternatives have been purged.

In their own apparent terms, can you show me where they have not succeeded at least in part? They are filthy rich now, well connected, all but immune from taxation or other obligations, triumphant over their enemies, and set up for a long run of planetary dominance.


That sounds like you're describing Ernst Stravo Bloefeld (of James Bond fame) or someone of similar literary import. Do you read this stuff before you post it? Planetary dominance...

Not everything worked perfectly for them. Iraq even, let alone Iran, is not yet firmly in hand, and the Central Asian leverage (along with the war contracting profits, of course) will have to assauge the pain for a while yet. The Venezuelan coup is still pending, but may not work out. The pipeline struggle has proven Russia a worthy foe, and China a skilled player.


One assumes these contests were all hashed out, ala the X-Files, in a darkened room, filled with cigarette smoke?

Domestically, they almost got their hands on the Social Security gravy train, and made bigger steps toward freeing themselves from the IRS than any before them. That isn't failure. And the little black clouds of subpeona, on the horizon, may never actually rain.


They failed to get any kind of social security reform in tangible reform so it could be debated. They failed to do the same with the IRS and most of the major tax reforms they trumpeted through the pundits. Bush didn't want a nationalized airport security, either. He lost that battle, too.

That "segment" is still running the Republican Party, meltdown or no meltdown. The alternatives have been purged.

Really? Is that why a centrist like Gulliani is leading the polls? Or Newt Gingrich, who was run out of the party, has made a comeback?

Really? Is that why a centrist like Gulliani is leading the polls? Or Newt Gingrich, who was run out of the party, has made a comeback?

Our populace has a short attention span.

I wouldn't be surprised to see President Dick Cheney in 20 years, heh -- assuming he's still alive then.

- N

Really? Is that why a centrist like Gulliani is leading the polls? Or Newt Gingrich, who was run out of the party, has made a comeback? ! Yes. Of course. Obviously. For pity's sake, Newt is one of them - "the man who made liberal a dirty word".

They failed to get any kind of social security reform in tangible reform so it could be debated. They failed to do the same with the IRS and most of the major tax reforms they trumpeted through the pundits. You talk as if getting rid of Social Security were some kind of normal ambition, that a lot of Presidents had tried. It was a phenomenal essay that almost succeeded - that set of assclowns almost handed Social Security to their Wall Street financier supporters. They actually proposed eliminating the IRS - and succeeded in cutting back on already weak enforcement. They actually passed huge tax cuts for themselves and their supporters, including defense contractors, in the middle of record borrowing for a war.

A war they started agaisnt a non-enemy for no particular visible reason, after getting permission to run everything their way from Congress.

That was quite the display of power. Where's the failure?

Sure, they screwed up governing the country. But was that ever one of their goals?

You talk as if getting rid of Social Security were some kind of normal ambition, that a lot of Presidents had tried.

Actually, I was amazed he tried it.

It was a phenomenal essay that almost succeeded - that set of assclowns almost handed Social Security to their Wall Street financier supporters.

Oh, how I wish they had done so! As it is, I will never see a dime of my social security contributions, but that's another topic. Here you seem to have rewritten history. Bush didn't almost succeed. The effort fell flat on its face. He basically went around, made a few speeches and some pundits from the Heritage Foundation got on TV and jabbered about it. That's it. Nothing else happened. His own party wouldn't even support him, and so far as I can remember, the issue never even came close to being taken seriously or presented in the form of a bill.