Via Huff Post:
It is time for the Democrats to introduce Karl Rove to the American people. Mr. Rove is a man who likes to work behind the scenes. He lurks in shadows, stands silently in the back of crowded rooms, and gleefully watches situations that he has created, unfold. If Karl Rove makes the front page of the New York Times 3 days in a row, he is not doing his job.
I highly recommend the blog from James Moore. The blog describes in some detail KRs past.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/jim-moore/the-knower-of-allknowing_4064.html
The interesting thing about Rove’s past is that clearly demonstrates an M.O. that is consistent with the Plame controversy. “leak, lie, defame, obfuscate, and deny” – Ironically you can see the tactic even being used in Roves defense!
Moore lists a number of similar political hatched jobs that have been attributed to Rove.
1. Rumors about then Texas Gov. Ann Richards' sexuality.
2. South Carolina to suggest that Sen. John McCain was mentally unstable and may have fathered a black child out of wedlock
3. Blaming democrats for “bugging” his office. Ultimately, ruining the credibility of the opponent.
In addition, this is not the first time Rove has used Novak as a mouth piece for a smear campaign.
…Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush Sr. campaign for trashing Robert Mosbacher, Jr., who was the chief fundraiser for the campaign and an avowed Bush loyalist. Rove accomplished this trashing of Mosbacher by planting a negative story with columnist Bob Novak. The campaign figured out that Karl had done the dirty deed, and he was given his walking papers.
The American people need to know that one of Bush’s top advisor is a bad man, and regardless of whether or not he violated the law, Karl Rove should not be advising the president. The American people should also question the president’s judgment. After all, people are judged by the company they keep, and George W. has been keeping company with KR for a long time.
You only get one chance to make a first impression, Democrats need to make sure that America’s first impression of KRs is that he is a villain and not a victim.
Posted by Loyal Dem Strategist at July 15, 2005 01:19 AMLoyal Dem, you left out another very important part of the Rove Operation: He has done all you list (and much more) while hiding behind prayer meetings and the thick cloak of Born-Again HyperChristian Rapture-ite religious nut-ism. Putting it simply, he does everything a Christian tries not to do by shielding himself with Christianity. And of course, there is Gannon.
Posted by T2 at July 15, 2005 07:04 AMJames Kroeger says rich Americans are saving too much.
Do you agree with him?
.
Linette
NPR is Dead, Long Live NPR
Well, to be fair, it"s only moribund, not yet laid out in a casket with garlic-stuffed head firmly planted between feet of clay. There can be no doubt however, that the once proud intellectual excellence has plummeted precipitously. I believe the forced retirement of Bob Edwards can be considered our canary keeling over in distress.
Last night, I was subjected to the usual charade of political discourse on All Things Considered. The dynamic duo of Shields and Brooks "crossed swords" in typical fashion. David Brooks goes on the attack with several of todays talking points, #1 "Wilson claimed the VP sent him to Niger, and that turned out to be untrue" #2 Judy Miller is in jail because she's upholding a noble ideal (not covering her own prevaricacious ass). #3 Matt Cooper was simply being warned by a transcendently helpful Rove against believing a lying Wilson's evil spin.
All the time, E.J. Dionne sits there in the studio like a lump of liberally inclined suet. When it's his turn, no dispution of the "facts" from him. The terminally self-satisfied Robert Siegel remembered that he's supposed to act as interlocutor in the discussion and mentions that Wilson's primary point, that there was no evidence of Iraq buying nuclear material, was proved true. E.J. chips in with his most cogent point, "and Wilson was right on that" (take that Mr. Brooks). But David was up to the challenge. He immediately fired back, "We don't want to get too deep into that!"
He then lobbied back with a dazzling, "We're in Alice in Wonderland territory here" (meaning of course, to even consider that somebody other than Wilson and wife were lying was just too weird) he seemed pleased with the statement and repeated it. I think it may have been original. Which of course, must have made it especially precious to him. Mighty journalist Siegel then returned with a devastating, "Alice in Wonderland....Ok, about the bombings in London."
I'm sure that, after the show, an excited brooks must have rushed back to Billy Krystol's office for an extra large bone and an affectionate noogie, before carefully transcribing tomorrow's talking points from "his master's voice". As for E.J., what the hell does he do when he's not being used as a feeble foil for a wingnut pundit on some talk show or other? Do they hang him in a closet?
This morning, I caught a report on the Democratic- excuse me- Democrat Amendment to the Homeland Security financing bill. After a loose description of its purpose, "to remove security clearance from Karl Rove", we were treated to about 15 seconds of sound bites, shared by one of the bill's sponsors and Ambassador Wilson saying, Rove is a bad man. This was followed by three clips from lying Republican Senators, outraging about the blatant partisan nature of the amendment and how vile were the attacks on a poor public servant like Karl.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that an actual journalist editing this story just might have thought the listeners would have been interested to know that these same paragons of civility had inserted an amendment to the amendment. I mean, it kind or seems connected to the narrative. The Republican amendment stated, in part, "or any federal officeholder who makes reference to a classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the United States Senate" which seems to be pretty clearly targeted at Sen. Dick Durbin and his famously treasonous "Nazi" statement. Unfortunately, the Republicans had to vote down their own amendment because they belatedly realized that it would strip half of their "leadership" of security clearances, because quoting from classified FBI documents is one of their favorite pastimes.
I have an hour commute from work. I used to look forward to the opportunity to listen to All Things Considered to contentedly pass the time. Once, I would occasionally wonder to myself, "What an intelligent question!" or, "I didn't know that!" Nowadays, the spittle stained speaker grill is dented from repeated blows and I find myself yelling, "Why didn't you say...?" and "What about...?"
But, unless you're a Republican, nothing in this crazy old world is purely black and white. My commutes home are frequently, surreally serene. I travel in a traffic bubble, with traffic piling up well behind me, with only an occasional driver racing past with eyes fixed rigidly ahead. There are silver linings in almost any cloud. Life can still be good.
Hey Linette, good link. I don't think I agree with him, but he did edit his blog and said that he believes the wealthy save too much, and that leads to what he sees as a problem with unemployment.
More later. Good topic, though.
Posted by muckdog at July 15, 2005 08:34 AMDeminNewJ - I heard that discussion too. What a pathetic excuse of journalism. (not that these left-right conversations are remotely journalism) I railed on it on somewhere else this morning . . can't remember where. The whole damn time I'm yelling at the radio for someone to refute this fool's spin.
I think part of the problem is that the Brooks v. Dionne matches have rapidly turned ugly on the air before, usually when Brooks gets nasty and starts throwing personal invectives after getting called out, forcing Robert Seigel to jump to a station break and read the boys the riot act. What's odd is that result of these fights have been that Dionne has been less willing to refute and prod Brooks' lousy allegations and letting him run unchecked when it's Brooks that starts the fight. And this time, Dionne knew that all he could to was state that he thought the points Brooks was using were lies, and implying that Brooks himself was knowingly lying. So to keep the peace, he gave Brooks a pass. Probably a feel too.
I think both of the commentators are fully guilty of being whores, just to different masters.
Posted by idiosynchronic at July 15, 2005 09:41 AMI don't think I agree with him, but he did edit his blog and said that he believes the wealthy save too much, and that leads to what he sees as a problem with unemployment.
And we stop this problem through tax structure and transfer payments. Good to see you finally get the point.
Phid, were you born stupid or have you become that way because of your environment and experiences?
When the rich "save," they do so through investments. Some of that goes into bonds, which helps cash strapped states and governments fund things like govt. worker pensions, roads and infrastructure, etc.
Some of this goes into stocks, which help companies get cash to hire workers and produce goods and services.
Some of this sits in savings accounts, which banks loan out to help fund other business and consumer needs. Or banks invest it in some of those things above.
Catch a clue, dude.
Posted by muckdog at July 15, 2005 11:11 AMCatch a clue, dude.
Works like a charm. Look at how the middle class showed no growth in their income under your "magic" plan. How long do we wait for this to happen? 20 years?
Posted by phidipides at July 15, 2005 11:44 AMAre you one of those late 90's bubble heads, Phid? You think stocks were going to go up 29% every year, and everybody was going to make $250/hr making web pages in Frontpage?
LOL.
Posted by muckdog at July 15, 2005 12:09 PMPhidpeePee
Stupid one...Buy Jones Soda under 6 bucks. Back up da truck boy, buy it on margin. You'll be rolling in great wealth in a couple years and become republican. BTW they have a new flavor. Beef & Gravy, eat and drink at the sametime Pillsbury boy. I think they have Judith's pic on that flavor
Posted by Chevy at July 16, 2005 06:02 AMIf Karl Rove worked for the DEMS he'd be the 2nd comming of Christ.
Posted by Chevy at July 16, 2005 06:09 AMThe Democrats wouldn't have Rove. Futhermore, if Karl Rove had been of age in the 1950's the Eisenhower Republicans would have exposed him themselves as they did McCarthy.
Posted by rlprather at July 16, 2005 06:31 AM