|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Aug 22nd, 2007 09:28 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Doubt it. If Republicans really cared one bit about what our tiny little group of people who pay at least a little attention to politics think about Karl Rove manning a position in the administration, he would have been kicked out long ago. The vast majority of Americans have no idea at all who the guy is, or even what a Chief of Staff is for that matter. I don't think they are trying to get him out of the picture at all... in fact, it looks more to me like they might be placing him more in public eye than he ever has been. He wasn't quail hunting Sunday... he was on Meet the Press, handing David Gregory his ass. The guy's very smart, he's an effective speaker, and he knows more about what's really going on in the administration than most anybody else. He has a gift for packaging that knowledge into what sells in the sticks, and the White House doesn't need him right now, at least not as much as they need him functioning in a non-official capacity. The more he's on TV, the higher Bush's numbers will rise, which only helps the Republican Party. Newt's banging the change drum, necessary to win any election, and now Rove's humming "It ain't as bad as they say it is." The primaries will decide on the tune to the song. |
|
| Aug 22nd, 2007 09:34 AM | ||
| mburbank |
KultureKlub, if you want to be village idiot, you need to come around more often. I don't know why Rove resigned, but my personal theory is that his resignation was requested by a large number of Republican congressman in return for which they won't abandon the Bush administration. I think they might be mad at Rove about the role he's played in making the word 'Republican' synonomous with the phrase 'treacherous sack of crap.' |
|
| Aug 19th, 2007 12:18 PM | ||
| davinxtk |
Actually, I think he's been undervilified. Anyone whose stated goal it is to create an "enduring republican majority" (as scary a phrase no matter which party you happen to insert, and unfortunately one I've heard several times since this jackass had to call more attention to himself) is in the business of damaging democracy. He (and those like him, on both sides of the political equation) attempt to solidify what should be a fluid system, intentionally clogging the nation's collective aorta. These people are not only literally the power brokers of the nation, but they've sold out to the highest bidder and are in fact using their powers for evil instead of good, no matter which party or parties happen to be buying the product. In 2000, the republicans had the house and the senate and needed the presidency, so they tapped Rove. He directed them where to go, what to say, and who to schmooze to win. It of course never mattered what promises they were making or whose ideologies they were pretending to adopt to get them there, the goal was the presidency. By the time 2004 rolled around, we weren't just dealing with an incumbent candidate, we were dealing with incumbent issues. An almost entirely different set of issues won the election, largely because the administration (with plenty of help from Rove) worked to create both domestic and international circumstances that would keep it in power. Doesn't this seem, even just on the surface, to subvert the will of the people? Aren't there scores of issues affecting the average American that simply don't get paid attention to because Karl Rove or some other political consultant has already decided that paying lip-service to other issues will win the election, even if they're never mentioned after the inauguration speech? Forget your party allegiances for a moment and take a look at what this does to the structure of our government and our socioeconomic agility as a nation. This isn't a system of government, this is a system of marketing. This isn't democracy, or even a democractic republic: it's a sortof hybrid republicapitalist ego-frenzy. I'm experiencing total vocabulary failure here, so I have to depart. But I'll leave you with an old thread for shits and giggles first: http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?p=266578. And shit, I forgot I don't post here anymore. |
|
| Aug 18th, 2007 10:57 PM | ||
| Kulturkampf |
I do not speculate as to why he left or the nature of any of that mumbo-jumbo. Who knows. Perhaps he wants to pursue family life more? I think he was overly vilified by the left. |
|
| Aug 18th, 2007 01:07 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | I think his overall point is that he isn't nearly as competent and talented as the Left makes him out to be. I would say that's a fair evaluation. | |
| Aug 13th, 2007 08:31 PM | ||
| Miss Modular |
Quote:
|
|
| Aug 13th, 2007 08:56 AM | ||
| sspadowsky |
From the last paragraph of the article: "Mr. Rove says he is done with political consulting but that he leaves the scene as a 'myth. There's the Mark of Rove.'" See what other, more accurate words you can think of to replace "myth." |
|
| Aug 13th, 2007 08:22 AM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Rove Resigning Aroo? I'm a little confused by this one. While I re-instate my belief in God just long enough to pray that whoever succeeds him isn't even worse, why don't you all speculate on why this is happening, as well as what it means for the rest of this lame-duck administration? |
|
