Slashdot Mirror
Karl Rove Resigning Aug 31
tetrahedrassface writes "According to CNN current Bush Administration political advisor Karl Rove will be resigning his post as senior political advisor at the end of August to spend more time with his family. Few if any prior senior political advisors to presidents have been the lightning rods for controversy that Mr. Rove has. Accused of running smear campaigns and celebrated for pioneering district level up campaigns that rely heavily on databases and fake grassroots origins, Mr Rove is one of the chief architects of the Republican Revolution."
I'm just looking forward to the next election simply because once Bush is out, I no longer have to hear about people constantly complaining about him. I'm starting not to care who wins, I just don't trust Hillary one bit. I can see it in her eyes and her expressions. I didn't get a good feeling about her even during the 1992 elections.
satan HAS a family?
seriously, that's the most transparent excuse in modern politics. when you are disgraced, you leave and tell the world 'its time to spend more time with my family.'
bollocks.
but at any rate, the damage has already been done. who knows how long we'll be 'paying' for the effect this bastard left on the world. yes, the world - he affect way more than just the US, of course.
what an evil evil man. one of the worst of the last 50 years, if I may be so bold.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I'm not sure if I should rejoice or freak out. I'm glad to see him out of there, as I'd like to see the whole administration gone. But at the same time, while I'm not a mega-tinfoil-hat kind of guy, I do wonder if he's leaving because he's now completed whatever he wanted to do there, and how afraid should I be of whatever that might be.
This man says he's leaving "for his family".
Thant's because they have the evidence of his cruising activities with D.C.'s gay hustlers. http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pRvic62nhFoJ:
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I haven't heard much on the voter caging scandal. If anything is an abuse of data mining its the 3 million or so registered voters denied their rights. The Attorney Generals, the resignation of his assistant and now his resignation are probably all smokescreens for the continued practice of challenging minority votes.
The Dems were also trying to distance themselves from the Clintons at the end of Bill's terms in office.
Which was, in retrospect, an incredibly dumb thing to do. The Clinton Administration was marked by a general trend of peace and prosperity, and while Bill Clinton's personal exploits were shameful, his job approval rating remained quite high. If Gore had campaigned on a platform of "keep doing what my predecessor did, except I'm faithful to my wife", he very well could have had an undisputable win in 2000.
I just hope that some people finally put their vote where their mouth is a vote third parties.
I hope that some third-party candidates appear on the scene that actually have the qualifications needed to serve in office. I don't care how long you've been publishing your pamphlet or running your oil fields, if you haven't already been elected to city, county, state or federal government, I don't trust you to lead my nation.
The political machine will chew you up if you don't have experience operating it.
"Mr Rove is one of the chief architects of the Republican Revolution"
Don't you mean he's one of the people responsible for ending it? As far as I can see, the Republicans have been winning less and less over the last 8 years, to the point where most pundits believe the Dems will win the presidency and both houses of Congress in '08. The only people happy about Rove's departure should be Republicans.
On the other hand, since so many Democrats think he's some sort of genius... what does that say?
+5 totally missed the point.
There's a difference between someone who looks ugly and someone who looks dishonest. It's not just physical appearance - it's mannerisms, etc. People are pretty good at reading each other's expressions. The blind guy is a total red herring.
I find it quite bemusing that Fox News says there hasn't been a Chief of Staff like Karl Rove since Harry Haldeman, Nixon's Chief of Staff.
I am sure I am revealing my opinion of the Bush administration/Presidency somewhat, but its one heck of a coincidence that arguably the two most corrupted Presidency's of the United States 20th/21st centuries have the two most similar Chiefs of Staff.
When you make a statement, you imply the inverse. When you say that Karl Rove, in his evil ways, wanted to create a permanent Republican majority, you're implying that there is no idea in liberal minds of creating a permanent Democrat majority.
I don't think that's really true, so it's a bit hypocritical for you to criticize Rove for doing well what Democrats would love to do. Remember, Rove is where he was because of the outcome of an election. I don't really understand what your crying about interests not being represented fairly is all about then. If you don't like it, good luck in the next election. That's called democracy.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
I would go so far as to say Bush's low popularity numbers reflect on how much conviction he has. He operates under beliefs, not by raising his finger in the air and seeing which way the wind is blowing (IE Dems on Iraq).
Sticking to one's "convictions" when reality has proven them wrong is not an admirable trait. When you find you are digging yourself into a hole, you stop digging, not "stay the course" and dig faster.
What's going to happen when we beat the terrorists in Iraq? What are the cowering, wimpering, cut and run democrats going to do then?If they have any sense they'll cut our losses and write off Iraq. The American people, unfortunately, probably don't have the patience for the time and effort it would take to clean up the huge mess Bush has made.
And hopefully after a few years of no major terrorist activity the cowardly conservatives crying like children about monsters under their beds will grow up and grow some balls.
This move doesn't make any sense. Just when the Bushites need him the most, he "quits"? Here's a list of reasons why this is bizarre:
Like so many before, "spending time with his family" is a polite lie. Just because he's leaving his official post doesn't mean he won't still be pulling the puppet strings from backstage.
Something else, really big, is going on.
Wrong.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Seeing as she was addressing a group of hundreds of wealthy supporters, and referring specifically to the Bush tax cuts, I don't see your point. Unless you consider progressive taxation to be "communism", in which case, I hear the Birchers are always looking for members.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
I'm not an American and therefore can't vote, but my personal opinion (and it's not the evil, liberal foreigner crap) is that, of all of the current crowd of goons running for president, Hillary Clinton would be, by far, the best, and very possibly one of the best presidents you've ever had.
Of all of the current candidates, left and right, she is the only one who has consistently, from what I can tell, maintained her positions, even if they weren't always popular. For instance when she was discussing lobbyists with bloggers at the DailyKos, she didn't pander to the popular opinion then. She has, I think, a fairly clear idea of what she wants and what her platform is. She isn't naive (Obama's bullshit about Pakistan was enough to disqualify him), and she has, by virtue of her years with Bill and a state senator, a decent amount of experience. She doesn't have wacky shit like Romney or Giulliani, and she isn't scared of dissenting opinion, which, given the facsist crap that is happening in yuor country, should be a breath of fresh air for everyone.
In fact the only thing that really is not in her favour is that there are one fuck of a lot of Americans that are somehow terrified of women, who spend a whole bunch of energy making hysterical, wildly paranoid prophecies about how bad she would be. I find it difficult to believe that anything could be worse than the incompetent evil clowns in power right now, but there you have it.
As funny as it sounds, you hit one of the nails square on the head. I don't think half the previous US Presidents would've been elected if there was TV back then.
Congress still has the power to reign a president in, as Clinton constantly discovered. The problem has been that Congress somewhere along the way lost the balls to stand up to executive stupidity and say "No!" There was a day and an age when Congress had no problem whatsoever making a President's life grief. Heck, Woodrow Wilson was forced to go to his allies and tell them that there was no way in hell that the United States would join the League of Nations.
The problem is that in this age of big money, Congressional candidates are under an enormous amount of pressure to sell their souls for victory. When they get into office, they are now expected to behave precisely as all the strategists and special interests tell them. Congressman and woman ought to read the Constitution really hard to understand the concept of checks and balances. It's their job to offset the President, whether or not he happens to cloak himself in the same colors or not.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
While I agree with you in:
t ml
How about the one where the government can now IN SECRET, presenting no evidence or holding no hearing or trial as GUARANTEED by the Constitution, seize your assets? How is that "protecting the constitution?
This does seem a rather natural progression given what we've been doing to our rights for A LONG TIME. Ever heard of civil forfeiture? It's been in use for a long time before Bush.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-345.ZS.h
Gotta love cases like United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms.
Bush may be doing things that are quite objectionable to quite many, but the funny thing is, things that would have been clearly unconstitutional in the past (such as, oh, a federal minimum wage, or federal workplace safety laws) suddenly become constitutional when expedient, with no substantive changes in the underlying text or intent. I always tell people, a constitution subject to interpretational whim is a slippery slope. If you let politicians and judges decide how our fundamental legal foundations change without the bother of amendments and the entire associated process, then odds are it will change in ways you both like and do not like. You can't have it only your way. Unless you try to pack the Court. Like FDR.
Larry