Democrats & Liberals Archives

Karl Rove's Strategy

Karl Rove’s strategy may be summarized in 1 word: attack. Never mind issues, just attack your opponent’s character. Don’t go positive. Attack, attack, attack until the very end. Attack with sleaze, smears and ugly innuendo. This is what Rove told Republican activists earlier this year. This is what Rich Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, said last Friday on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

Lowry said that since Republicans did not have any good issues to talk about, they must go negative. Furthermore, he said that there was nothing wrong with this approach. Rah, rah, rah.

Some Republican candidates in trouble are following Rove's advice. Among them are 3 Republicans running for senate seats: George Allen in Virginia, Bob Corker in Tennessee and Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania.

George Allen, of "maccaca" fame, attacked Democrat Jim Webb for his books that contain sex. It should be noted that Jim Webb has written historical novels that paint wartime horrors in Vietnam. His books include "Fields of Fire," which has been on the Marine Corps reading list. According to Kay James, an Allen campaign adviser:

How can women trust Jim Webb to represent their views in the Senate when chauvinistic attitudes and sexually exploitative references run throughout his fiction and nonfiction writings?

Allen took a few Webb-fiction excerpts about sex (have you read any novel without sex in it lately?) and used them to try to destroy Webb's character. Sleaze, smears and ugly innuendo.

But Bob Corker is slimier. Corker is in a race against Democrat Harold Ford. The Republican National Committee sponsored an ad in which a scantily clad porn star beckons to Harold Ford to call her. Harold Ford's campaign put the ad on UTube and it caused quite a stir. So much so that Corker is seeking to retract the ad. Sleaze, smears and ugly innuendo.

Rick Santorum, who is running against Democrat Bob Casey, in all his holiness, made this outrageous accusation:

Bob Casey has invested Pennsylvania pension funds in companies with ties to terrorist-sponsoring states and states that engage in genocide. Bob Casey is aiding and abetting terrorism and genocide.

With this statement, Santorum beats Ann Coulter in nastiness. Coulter claims liberals are traitors. Santorum implies that Casey is not merely a traitor but someone who encourages murder. Sleaze, smears and ugly innuendo.

How low can Karl Rove and the Republicans go? I say they have reached bottom. They can't go any further down, because the Democrats will stop them a week from tomorrow.

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 30, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #191684


And the dems do everything on the up and up?

There’s a Pierre Cardin fake, but a Ben Cardin fake?

Also do you have link to Rich Lowry’s comments?

Posted by: Keith at October 30, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #191685

The Republicans are soooo desperate and rightly so. Why don’t they just bite down on the cyanide capsules they keep in their mouths and get it over with. I just took a page from Ann “Eva Braun” Coulter. Who are the Republicans calling facists?! Thats like the pot calling the kettle black. Karl Rove would pimp his mother out if he thought it would win an election. People like that have no “low”. Bob Corker is just jealous he didn’t get invited to the Playboy mansion. What better way to get votes in a redneck state than to play on the old stereotype of “black man, white woman”? So typical and it just goes to show how racist America still is that the Republicans knew this ad would work. When will November get here PLEASE!!!!!!!

Posted by: lefty at October 30, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #191686

Karl Rove is actually a political genius who makes his nothing-but-negativity counterparts in the Democratic party (such as Howard Dean) look like babies in poopy-pants.

The real reason that Democratic Kool-Aid drinking partisans hate him is that he has a long history of cleaning their clocks, and whatever happens next Tuesday, he’s sure to keep doing just that in future races for the next several decades.

Rove has pushed (advisedly or not—not always in my view) a great many proactive political measures, such as drug benefits, social security and immigration reform, and a marriage amendment. He has tons of ideas, and fights to see them enacted.

It’s hilarious to see Rove painted as merely an attack dog by a party who, if you put all their heads together, don’t have a single idea to share among them except “Bush bad, we good.”

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 30, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #191688


Are you really this blind? Ask George Bush if he has been attacked much by democrats. Oh that is different. If Democrats do it, it is always legitimate. Rolling eyes.

It is nice to know that you democrats are virgins and never ever would attack a republican. No you Paul would never think of attacking the right.

Rolling eyes. You live in a huge glass house Paul and are throwing rocks,


Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 30, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #191691

Is that the only defense Republicans have for the evil they do is “Well ,you do it too?” What a load of horse hockey. Get over it when you lose next week.

Posted by: lefty at October 30, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #191692

Pathetic….. Democrates are always attacking with no more of an issue that they hate Barak Obamma… lol please run.However;
“I came here for an argument not contradiction.”
The democrates offer NOTHING but REACTION to someone elses plan. CNN and the Liberal media has done nothing but attack since they LOST the election. And why, cuz Kerry and Gore and the next Democrate funlky offer nothing. I am so curious as to how low they will go to find someone to run.

Posted by: Ross at October 30, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #191693


I am not going to defend anything. It’s wrong. I just think you guys are a bit hypocritical. Ok a lot hypocritical for thinking yourself so pure and white in a food fight.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 30, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #191694

Defintion of attacking Democrats: reminding anyone of what they have said or what they have done.

Paul is just spinning in a void.

Nobody with a half a brain believes for a second that Rove ever said “Attack with sleaze, smears and ugly innuendo” or that Lowry of the National Review ever said that “Republicans don’t have any good issues to talk about.” What complete and laughable bull.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 31, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #191699


You’ve outdone yourself this time with stretching the truth. The following is from the transcript of last Friday’s Newshour

RICH LOWRY, Editor, National Review: Well, first of all, on the negativity, if top Republican strategists have their way, Republican candidates will not be closing positive this year. They’ll stay negative.
Because, look, it’s a sour mood out there. People aren’t particularly happy with Republican governance. It’s not a “morning again in America” type of time, as it was in 1984 when Reagan was running for re-election. So they want the contrast with Democrats. They want to do everything they can to discredit the Democrats as an alternative.
The Tennessee ad, I think, was very effective. I don’t think it had anything to do with race. I think, as Kathleen Hall Jamieson pointed out in Ford’s response, it had to do with God and church, because Harold Ford has been running a brilliant, almost flawless campaign in Tennessee, partly based on the idea that he’s a choir boy who wants to do nothing else but be in those church pews.
And the Republicans wanted to get him talking about going to a Playboy party, which is not a big sin in the scheme of things, but it complicates his message. And he has had to address it now. He has been on the defensive responding to an ad which is never a good thing in a campaign.

I don’t see Karl Rove or attack, attack,attack anywhere.

Posted by: Keith at October 31, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #191700

Well now isn’t that what the Repulicans have done for last few years? They have portrayed this “holier than thou” position like they are so pure and white. In reality the United States is living in a glass house right now thanks to the republicans. We pretend to be the beacon to the world on how to do the right thing when in reality “we” are the hypocrites.

Posted by: lefty at October 31, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #191701

An internal Kerry-Edwards/DNC manual obtained by the press in October 2004 urged Democrat operatives to launch “pre-emptive strikes” alleging Republican voter intimidation against minority voters, regardless of whether evidence of such intimidation actually existed. The Kerry-Edwards/DNC “Colorado Election Day Manual” stated: “If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch ‘pre-emptive strike.’” (5) (Exhibit A) Though titled “Colorado Election Day Manual” this document and its recommendations were reportedly part of the campaign plan used by Democrats in Florida and other battleground states. (6)

Posted by: Kirk at October 31, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #191704

Keith, and there’s also nothing in Lowry’s comments about the Republicans not having “any good issues.”

This kind of manufactured nonsense is pretty typical in any post on this site by Paul, who—ironically—is capable of nothing but making nasty comments about Republicans that dissolve like tissue paper at first contact with facts or logic.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 31, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #191706

Since Paul didn’t provide it here is the link to the entire transcript

Posted by: Keith at October 31, 2006 12:27 AM
Comment #191710

Please refrain from the filth that spews from your mouth you’re not in the latreen right now. It seems you’re secretly jealous of the democrats and that you really hope they win next week. Come on, admit it?

Posted by: lefty at October 31, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #191714

In General:

I’m in the midst of deciding whether or not to read another blog written by Paul Siegel, because the past several have either been vapid, dishonest, or both. What have you done here but pull the same stunt of which you accuse Rove? I think the lack of replies to those who cry foul on this drivel is statement in itself. His might be the only blogs I’ve ever read where (unless I’ve just missed them), the author refuses to respond to legitimate challenges offered by his readers. I’m not talking about the equally stupid cries of “Pelosi, Kennedy, Murtha, oh my!”, but legitimate ones such as here where Keith exposes what appears to be outright lies.

To the blogger himself:

You have a bit of explaining to do, Mr. Siegel, and I’m tired of being the audience for your propaganda. There are enough legitimate issues facing our country that I can do without partisan crap. Perhaps instead of continually beating your “Yellow Dog”, you should research and write something relevant. All of your blogs strike me EXACTLY as our friends to right characterize them: vacuous parcels of partisan cheerleading that inevitably are deconstructed, debunked, and then flushed. It’s almost as though you’re setting up the straw men for our friends on the right to fell.

Wow, I can’t wait to see the Libertarian candidates on the ballot Tuesday!

Posted by: Jacob in SC at October 31, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #191722
Karl Rove’s strategy may be summarized in 1 word: attack. Never mind issues, just attack your opponent’s character. Don’t go positive. Attack, attack, attack until the very end. Attack with sleaze, smears and ugly innuendo. This is what Rove told Republican activists earlier this year.

You can take the quote above and replace Karl Rove’s with Howard Dean’s or James Carville’s or Nancy Pelosi’s or … and have just as honest a statement as that made by Paul.

Posted by: Kirk at October 31, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #191733


I thought the left was for freedom of speech, or does the First Amendment only cover rappers, pornographers, and Hollywood? As far as secretly wanting the Dimocrats to win, I’m not a masochist, so why would I want to put myself through such pain? Democratic incompetence at politicing is matched only by their incompetence at governance, which probably does more to make Rove look like a genius than anything he does himself.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 31, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #191746

It looks like Allen’s literary attack is backfiring. The latest Rasmussen poll, taken after he made a big stink about the novels, shows Webb ahead by 5.

For what it is worth, I don’t think there is anything unethical about pointing out the dirty passages in someone’s novels. It’s just desperate and silly.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 31, 2006 6:57 AM
Comment #191752

This line of comments is rather comical. There seems to be a trend of attacking the messenger, not the message, both in the original blog and the follow-up comments.

Please return to dialogue based on discussion of real issues and positions, and leave the sleaze to the media saturations from the candidates.

Some of us want to hear about the stances on the issues of concern in our country today, not who is being endorsed by Hustler magazine (a local candidate is saying exactly that about his opponent). Negative campaigns leave a bad taste in our mouths.

Thanks you all for your comments and input.

Posted by: Bob Petersen at October 31, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #191755

Wow, you guys are really fired up. The bottom line is that no matter what Rove has up his sleeve at this very moment, absolutely NO ONE is buying it. Well, maybe the sixth grade educated level of humans are, but they don’t use most of their brains anyway. My state of Ohio is deeply republican, and I can honestly say NO ONE is buying the crap that’s being sold here. We are completely over it. All the rhetoric in the world won’t change the fact that our children are being sent to their deaths in Iraq, $6.00 an hour is the going rate here and many of our political reps are swindling away our tax dollars-literally. We are used to being lied to after six years in office as the top advisor. Thank God for November 7th. I couldn’t come any sooner for me. Karl needs to get his back-up job in line. His hero status is about to crumble.

Posted by: phyl at October 31, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #191759
And the dems do everything on the up and up?

Democrats didn’t suggest McCain had a black child out of wedlock when it wasn’t true. The same group funded the Swift Boat Veterans campaign smearing Kerry. Rove papered college campuses with leaflets suggesting another Bush opponent was a child molester.

I’m not going to say Democrats are always squeaky clean, but Republicans far, far, far outstip Democrats when it comes to sleaze and spending. If it’s not true come up with an example of Democrats doing something that really can be compared to the above. Disgusting.

Posted by: Max at October 31, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #191765

Neo-Con Pilsner,

It’s hard for me to believe that a Republican opperative actually said this to Jim Lehrer also. But, there is no denying that this is their strategy. I consider American lives precious. As an American I have preference over our servicemen’s lives than even innocent civilians of any other countries. If we are fighting for a noble cause that will defend our country or protect our allies, I feel American servicemen’s casualties are tragic yet justified. If fighting “the enemy” in Iraq is so that we don’t have to fight them over here is this administrations rationale for this war, then why are we not annihilating them over there? That is my definition of war. I think democrats in congress share this view at this time more than republicans do.

Posted by: Harold at October 31, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #191770

Too All:
I recently started following these blogs out of curiosity and boredom. This is my first post in any kind of political forum. After looking in for several days it has become apparent that what seems to matter in politics these days are not the issues and what is being done about them. Rather this zest just to be the controlling party seems to be the most important issue to most of you. And upon reflection I think that saddly this attitude stems from the result of years of political corruption within our system.

Unfortunately for Rove he just happens to be one of the key cogs in the republican machine. And that machine because of repeated lying and scandal after scandal has lost much of its integrity and credibility with the American people and the world.(a sad but simple fact) Sometimes I think politicians truly believe we the voters, the people they are SUPPOSED to represent are unobservant and less than inteligent. Shame on them!

If the dems take control of the house or senate or both next week it won’t be because they have a better plan. It will be because the voters are sick and tired of being manipulated by power hungry, money motivated bums preying on the once apathetic attitudes of the middle class.

It seems to me that the days of the apathetic voter are over (at least for now) and both parties are going to have to clean up their act. There are alternatives, (independants) and voters of both parties are slowly and sensibly coming to that realization in the wake of all this political slime. I am not saying that the country is going to go out and vote independant in hords. But it is obvious that those who would not in the past even given that party a thought are now considering alternatives. All because our current governing parties take our allegiance for granted. Shame on us!

And just so you know, NO I do not consider myself an independant. But I have considered going that direction simply because it may be the only way to instill honesty, integrity and credibility back into our nations government. We have to keep our politicians honest and anserwable to us the voters. Unfortunately the only way we can do that is with the power of the vote.

Posted by: Ric at October 31, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #191773

This is once again a post that defies reasoning.

Why is it surprising that the Dems will gain seats this election. The party out of power ALWAYS gains seats in the midterm election of a second term President. In fact, I heard that the average pick up is 44 seats in the house alone.

So getting only 15-18 seats is not all that great if you ask me…Any less then that would be a slap in the face for Dems…

Wait a minute…
If it is less then that, it’s a Rove thing and there must be something illegal going on…

In fact, the dems should start saying that the election is rigged already, just in case…

Wait another minute…their already doing it…

Posted by: Cliff at October 31, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #191788

“I thought the left was for freedom of speech, or does the First Amendment only cover rappers, pornographers, and Hollywood?”

The Left is definitely for Freedom of Speech — for everyone. But we are also against Republican hypocrisy — for instance, Ken Mehlman (in the closet?) has been accepting political contributions from the King of Gay Porn.

Face it, the thin veneer of GOP Christian Morality has worn away, exposing a closet full of gays, gay porn, mockery of Christians, feather boas and bondage gear. Not to mention guys like Foley and those who’ll cover for guys like Foley.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 31, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #191789

The basic argument by the Red Column here is that you’re bad, so we get to be worse. Where’s the moral leadership in that? Aren’t you supposed to be better than us? The negative campaigning, the relentless negativity is not going to help. The Republicans have destroyed most of their positives, and have no choice but to go down in flames trying to burn everybody else.

The question for any election is how much of a challenge you set up for yourself to convince people you’re worth electing or re-electing. The Republicans have set themselves up a difficult if not impossible challenge to overcome, in no small part because they’ve put their faith in the ability of political campaigning and spin to save them. They don’t have to be accountable. They just have to whip up the right message to remain re-electable.

The unfortunate fact for them is this: the meaning of a message can change very quickly when it tries to compete with the meaningful events that surround a reality. That reality can skew the way in which the audience receives the message, giving people a tolerance and wariness that reduces the effectiveness of the politicking. Perception is very easy to spin around in circles, but its also very easy to lose hold of. Reality may be harder to spin, but in in the end, when you spin reality, it’s easier to end up back in a solid position.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #191790

Yo, Adrienne,

You are absolutely hilarious.

Posted by: Discerner at October 31, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #191791

I live in Chicagoland. Chicago invented dirty politics, machine politics, and voter fraud. This is where the dead vote early and often.

Here is what is happening in Chicagoland, which is a very heavy Democratric region.

Chicago is located in Cook County. Cook County is the 25th largest economy in the world and has a budget of over $3 Billion.

1. John Stroger was longest President of Cook County. He narrowly won a primary election against Forest Claypool. John Stroger had a stroke. There was no information about is condition, and then at the last minute, they appoint Stroger’s Son to run in the election. Completely bypassing Forest Claypool. Now the REpublican candidate running against Stroger is leading. This would be the first time in 40 years a REpublican would run the county of Cook.

2. Tammy Duckworth is running against Peter Roskum. Tammy is the Democrat. Tammy didn’t even live in the district. The Demoratic Party recruited TAmmy from outside the district to run. The National Democratic Party has run an ad claiming that Roskum wants to ban DR. Suess books. The claim is so outragous, and beyond he truth that it actually is helping Roskum.

But Roskum never put on an ad talking about Tammy being an outsider and recruited by Democrats to run

These national party ads from both sides take the facts and stretch them as far as they possibly can.

Posted by: JEiden at October 31, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #191802


The Assyrian International News Agency said the tragedy was reported by an Assyrian language web page at

(Story continues below)

The youth was identified as Ayad Tariq, who lived in Baqouba, Iraq, and was at work on Oct. 21 when a group of “disguised Muslim insurgents” went into the power plant shortly after his shift began at 6 a.m.

The website reported the insurgents asked him for his identification and, according to other witnesses who hid and stayed alive to report on the attack, questioned his identification card’s reference to him as a “Christian.”

Are you truly a “Christian sinner,” they asked.

“Yes, I am Christian but I am not a sinner,” he replied.

The insurgents then called him a “dirty Christian sinner,” grabbed his limbs and held them while beheading him, the witnesses reported.

They were shouting, “Allahu akbar! Allahu Akbar!” during the murder, witnesses said.

An organization called said they are the indigenous people of Iraq, with a population that has been in the Middle East from the time of Christ.

However, they have faced a number of purges by the region’s rulers over time, including the present attacks by powerful Islamic factions across Iran, Iraq and neighboring nations, officials said.

Only two generations back, Assyrian Christians made up 20 percent of the population of the Middle East, but during the Assyrian Genocide of 1915, an estimated three million Christians were slaughtered there, the organization said.

Current estimates are that there are about 2.5 million Assyrian Christians in Iraq.

Kenneth Scott LaTourette wrote in “A History of Christianity” that the Assyrian Christians became the first nation to accept Christianity, and one of the largest missionary-sending peoples in Christian history.

“The Assyrian Christians are one of the last remaining Christian communities in the Middle East,” said Rev. Ken Joseph Jr., of the Assyrian Christians organization.

Tens of thousands of Assyrian Christians have fled their traditional homelands in recent months, officials confirmed.

Posted by: Maxcroft Squire Muhldoon at October 31, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #191821
The basic argument by the Red Column here is that you’re bad, so we get to be worse. Where’s the moral leadership in that?

I may differ with some in that I don’t think that negative campaigning is always a bad thing. So taking issue with Paul is not about claiming the Republicans never campaign negatively. The problem with his post is that he seems to think that only Republicans do it and the Democrats are pure as the driven snow.

Think of voting for a politician like having to choose between one of two used automobiles. Yes, it’s good to hear about their postitive traits, but don’t you also want to know—before you put down your money—the negatives too? I mean, one car may look a little beat up, but if the other won’t go out of first gear, burns oil as fast as gasoline and has a body in the trunk, it’s good to find that out sooner rather than later.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 31, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #191844


“I don’t see Karl Rove or attack, attack,attack anywhere.”

Thanks for almost making my morning coffee come out my nose. I had no idea you were blind and deaf. Is it selective?


I echo your sentiments. I have really struggled in recent years to find candidates who are not hell bent on towing the party line. I think that after this election, more candidates are going to start distancing themselves from the petty partisanship that has driven incumbent approval ratings into the toilet lately. Of course, without meaningful reform, candidates will still be dependent on their party’s fundraising abilities. And the internal rules in congress make it difficult to bring up issues involving political reform.

The public’s role is to keep sending the message, via the vote, that elected officials are supposed to work for the people. Bloggers can help fight a good fight when they help to disseminate valuable information relating to a given politician’s loyalties. Sad thing is, in order to find those valuable nuggets of info, many times you must sift through the partisan garbage without becoming overly irate at the idiotic crap people write which serves no unselfish purpose. And since human beings tend to generally be better parrots than pragmatists (it takes much less effort), every medium of political communication (blogs included) will be primarily talking points.


“I live in Chicagoland. Chicago invented dirty politics, machine politics, and voter fraud.”

Not so fast. Remember Boss Tweed? I think NYC would take issues with your giving Chicago seniority.

But I think you hit on something important. National campaign ads should not be allowed in local elections. They do nothing but confuse issues, and the innuendos hardly ever make practical sense.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 31, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #191855


I’ll be glad when all those mean repubs get voted out of office.

Posted by: JimmyRay at October 31, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #191871

I’m sorry I got all the conservatives on this site so upset.

For the record, I hate all negative campaigning, whether done by Democrats or Republicans. I prefer campaigns that discuss the issues. However, since Clinton was president, the Republicans have been piling it onto Democrats.

Yes, there is sleaze on both sides. But Republicans are the masters at it.

I’m sorry I did not reply immediately. I did not get on the Net until now. I read the Lowry transcript you published as saying that since there are no good issues for Republicans to talk about so “They’ll stay negative.”

Lowry also said that going negative is not so bad. I referred to Lowry properly.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 31, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #191884

Hey neo-con and others,
Consider this:

In ‘04, Karl Rove burried his adoptive father - The only father he ever knew. A man he cared much about and for whom he arranged a memorial service in California. Immediately after the service, Rove returned to his efforts of drumming up the so-called-christian evangelical community and began his attack on Gay Marriage which the voters then responded to by claimeing that ‘values’ were the foremost issue on their mind as they went to vote.

The man who gave the last name of Rove to Karl Rove was Gay. He split with Karl’s mom for that reason but was in touch with Karl.

Karl Rove himself, is agnostic/atheist.

‘nuff said.

Posted by: RGF at October 31, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #191904

RGF, I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

This may come as a surprise to you, but being against gay marriage does not mean that you are against gays, that you are religious, that you don’t have gay friends and family members. Hell, it doesn’t even mean that you are not gay.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 31, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #191912

Rove, is a smear artist and nutcase rouser. HE appeals to those dumb enought to buy his BS. He’s all about the money.

Posted by: gergle at October 31, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #191913

“the thin veneer of GOP Christian Morality has worn away”

Now, Adrienne, only Liberals right racey novels. Or, well, gosh:

Lynn Cheney Loses It

Posted by: KansasDem at October 31, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #191917

‘nuff said


Is Rove somehow flawed by the fact that his stepfather was gay or because he is agnostic?

My stepdad who raised me is an alcoholic. Does that mean that once he dies I can’t fight to curb drinking?

My 20 year old daughter is not a Christian even though I am does that mean I should love her less or not stay in touch with her?

Just exactly what point are you trying to make.

Posted by: Kirk at October 31, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #191919

C’mon Dems,

Quit smearing Rove. This whole thread is based on a bunch of lies by Paul…read the transcript!

Posted by: Brian B at October 31, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #191921

I believe that that kid would have had a better chance had we been on the ball in getting Iraq together after the first battles, after the society collapsed. The insurgents are to blame to blame for their murderous ways, but we are to blame for going into this war without a proper strategy to counter it.

If you are so disgusted by this behavior, why don’t you advocated for change in policy that will get the Iraqis in the position to stop this?

Neo-Con Pilsner-
I don’t think we’re that naive. It’s just that the level of it in past years has been simply hateful, and difficult to take in stride. It’s not simply the allegation that the person is not the best for the office. Now its just simply personal destruction.

How should people respond to that? If they are slow to deal with such attacks, or decide not to dignify them, then its a guaranteed loss. We have to get more aggressive to deal with your people in campaigns.

This is not to argue the absurdity that we were pure souls before the election. But Rove’s style of campaigning had few precedents, and the strong feelings around 9/11 make attacks based on charges of disloyalty, of weakness particularly galling and angering.

In fact, I would tell you that the reason Democrats have become so strong in their opposition, so assertive in their campaigning, and so unwilling to back down has much to do with the results of being targeted as such. There’s only so much a person can take of that, especially when they don’t believe the charge.

When I look at Rove, I see a symbol of what has brought the Republican party down. People like him kept politicians in office of substandard caliber. Their hijinks created more problems for the party.

As Rove was brilliant, it allowed him to keep Bush in the White House despite a cornucopia of issues that might have sunk a less politically adept politician, and rightly so. But Rove was good at his job, and the president was re-elected, and then proceed to screw even more up.

This kind of degeneration is inevitable when there’s a strong focus on protecting a politicians image rather than keeping their behavior decent and accountable.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #191925


You just said it all. Bravo! I believe the more self-righteous you act the more perverted you are behind closed doors. No one can hold a candle to the Republicans when it comes to sleaze. The difference between Dems and Republicans is that the Dems dont try to hide behind moral sanctity. People like Karl Rove wouldn’t have a job if there were no morons out there who believed his crap, neither would George Bush for that matter.

Posted by: lefty at October 31, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #191928


What a crock. Look at one little piece of a speech and take it out of context. Typical desperation tactic. He was making fun of Bush and Bush’s lack of knowledge about the military having gotten him into trouble.

Was this on Rush this morning or something? This story is even in the president’s speech tomorrow. He actually released a copy of his speech to the press early…something usually only done for very important speeches like the state of the union address. Apparently he’s going to ask Kerry to apologize to the troops. Kerry already said he’s not going to apologize for being taken out of context and that he was directing the remarks solely at the president.

Same old, same old. Desperation is a stinky, stinky cologne.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 31, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #191949

It is a bit more sophisticated then that, Paul, but in its essence that is basically what their strategy is.

Too bad the Democrats are lousy at that or they might not have lost the last few elections.

Posted by: Zeek at October 31, 2006 5:20 PM
Comment #191951


You definetly hit it on the head…

Dems dont try to hide behind moral sanctity

They have no moral sanctity to hide behind.

Posted by: Discerner at October 31, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #191985

Here are transcripts of a few Leftist ads to review from 1998 and 2000. Now tell me that the Republicans are the evil ones.

1998 - Official Missouri Democratic Party radio ad which claimed voting Republican would lead to more church burnings:

“When you don’t vote, you let another church explode. When you don’t vote, you allow another cross to burn….When you don’t vote, you let the Republicans continue to cut school lunches.”

Mentioning the cross and church burning following a series of Black Church fires is race baiting pure and simple. Kind of makes the “Harrold call me” pale in comparisson.

2000 - I’m Renee Mullins. My father was James Byrd, Jr.

I still have nightmares thinking about him, the day three men chained him behind their pickup truck and dragged him three miles over pavement.

I can see skin being torn away from his body.

I can hear him gasping for air.

I can feel the tears in his eyes, the struggle of his brain as images of his life painfully bang through his head as the links of a heavy chain clinched around his ankles dragging him bump by bump until he was decapitated. [pause]

On June 7, 1998 this happened to my father, all because he was black.

I went to Governor George W. Bush and begged him to help pass a hate crimes bill.

He just told me no.

I’m doing this commercial to ask you to call Governor Bush at 512-X and tell him to introduce a hate crimes bill in Texas.

Let him know that our community won’t be dragged down by hate crimes.

Male Voice: Funded by Americans for Equality, a project of the NAACP National Voter Fund.

Two of the 3 men who killed James Byrd were sentenced to death. The third was sentenced to life after agreeing to testify against the others. Could they have executed them twice under hate crimes laws?

2000 - Hello, I’m Martin Sheen.
Between now and Election Day at least 2,000 Americans will die from gunfire.

Should the next president be a candidate of the gun lobby?

Should he have signed a bill that allows hidden handguns in churches, hospitals and amusement parks.

Should he be someone of whom the NRA has said that if he is elected, they’ll be working right out of the Oval Office.

That’s Governor Bush’s record.

Find out more at Somebody’s life may depend on it.

The claim that it is legal to carry a gun into a church, hospital or amusement park is an OUT-AND-OUT LIE. In fact Section PC 46.035 SUB-Sections 4, 5 and 6 OF THE TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUNS LAW make it either a Class A Misdamenor or 3rd Degree Felony to do so.

Posted by: Kirk at October 31, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #191987


You seem to think you are a ‘moral’ person. Can you define that for me. Does being moral include the killing of hundreds of thousands of human beings? Does your morality include knowing about a potential pedophile and hiding it so as not to risk loosing power? Do your moral allow for congressmen to take bribes in exchange for votes? or are you just repeating what you heard from some other ‘moral’ person?

Posted by: Frank at October 31, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #191995


If you want to talk about a pedophile lets talk about Gerry Studds the Democrat whos served 6 terms in Congress after admitting to having sex with a 17 year old male page.

So far, all we know about Foley is that he sends disgusting e-mail and IM’s. While that in itself is enough for him to be gone as far as I am concerned, it does not make him a pedophile. I just hope that during the investigations that they do not find that he did in fact have sex with one of these kids.

Posted by: Kirk at October 31, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #191996


How about we talk about nothing but all the bad things the opposing party has ever done in the past? Boy that’ll sure get us nowhere fast.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 31, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #191997


I was asking the moral Discerner a question. I don’t know anything about Studds I would have had a problem with that personally. The people who elected him have to deal with the moral issues regarding their decision. I have a problem with the leaders of the Republican party that clam to have the moral high ground then attempt to cover up for a “potential pedophile”. I was merely wondering how that can be covered under ones moral umbrella yet claim that Democrats are somehow not moral.

Posted by: Frank at October 31, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #192001


“Thanks for almost making my morning coffee come out my nose. I had no idea you were blind and deaf. Is it selective?”

What are you talking about? Paul said that that is what Rich Lowry said. IT IS NOWHERE

What is your problem? You don’t have to answer that, I know the answer. Truth to a liberal is like kryptonite to superman.

Posted by: Keith at October 31, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #192004

Assuming the Republicans have hit bottom is a foolhardy risk. They say someone has hit bottom when he throws away the shovel. I don’t anticipate that Rove or his followers will throw away the shovel until it stops working for them. The fact that the negativity, the lies, the partisanship work so effectively is discouraging and horrifying.

But to be fair, the Dems play into their hands time and time again. When someone hits you with a shovel is not the time to debate intelligently, unfortunately. The Republicans have not just changed the rules, but changed the entire game; in an ideal world, that should not succeed, but the fact is it does. The Dems have got to accept that and start fighting accordingly.

Posted by: munkypunks at October 31, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #192013

“Paul said that that is what Rich Lowry said.”


Read Paul’s article again. He’s clearly not quoting either Rove or Lowry in his opening comments. If he were he’d use these nifty little things: ” “.

Posted by: KansasDem at October 31, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #192019


Then I guess Paul is just a real bad writer, because if you cannot see that he is implying that Rich Lowry repeated what Rove said on Jim Lehrers show, then you are claivoyent or something.

Posted by: Keith at October 31, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #192022


You are right, the Dems need to stop assuming that the American public is sooo smart that somehow they will see through the Republican garbage. The Dems need to come out swinging and fight for what is right and stop letting the Repulicans get the last word. All the republicans have is fear, fear of everything from going to a football game on Sunday to a black man being with a white woman (Ford vs. Korker in TN). Say it isn’t so Rhett!!! I’m really scared that this kind of stuff works in this country. Democrats, UNITE!!!

Posted by: lefty at October 31, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #192034


I don’t see it. I’ve just read it again and what I see is Paul making a comparison. Both Rove and Lowry seem to support negative campaigning or to quote Paul, “Attack, attack, attack”.

Of course since you think Paul’s a real bad writer maybe I’m just a real bad reader.

Posted by: KansasDem at October 31, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #192057


“Lowry said that since Republicans did not have any good issues to talk about, they must go negative. Furthermore, he said that there was nothing wrong with this approach. Rah, rah, rah”

Can you show me where Lowry said anything remotely like this?

Posted by: Keith at October 31, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #192091


Because, look, it’s a sour mood out there. People aren’t particularly happy with Republican governance. It’s not a “morning again in America” type of time, as it was in 1984 when Reagan was running for re-election. So they want the contrast with Democrats. They want to do everything they can to discredit the Democrats as an alternative.

-Rich Lowry on the Newshour.

Essentially, people don’t like where they are on the issues, or with their record these past few years, so they’re going to drag their opponents down to remove their advantage.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2006 12:34 AM
Comment #192093

Actually Stephen the discussion was Pauls’ loose interpretation of what Rich said or didn’t say.

If someome is going to say so and so said something, it should actually be what they said.

Posted by: Keith at November 1, 2006 12:47 AM
Comment #192107


First off, calling a conservative libertarian a “liberal” shows your ignorance quite clearly. One needs to be willing to sound reasonable before they ever do so.

My point was simply that you MUST know to what the article is refering to…those attack ads that are being discussed on every news program right now. No reason to deny the strategy exists. I found it funny that someone would go to the trouble to look for it in the transcript, as if not finding it was proof it didn’t really exist.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 1, 2006 4:07 AM
Comment #192109

Paul; Boy,you once again really stired up the brownshirt dittoheads. Maybe after the election we can build some de-programing units to try and save whats left of their intellects.
Still ,I think you underestimate Rove and the people he serves. They can go much lower.Assaination,blackmail,kidnapping ,the arrest of political opponents,torture and all rest of the methods tyrants have used to stay in power for ages. They have no moral minimum. The only cipher involved for them is wether or not they can get away with it. We should expect the worst.

Posted by: BillS at November 1, 2006 4:18 AM
Comment #192132

I would like to personally thank John Kerry for handing the Republicans victory for the second straight election.

Not only has he pissed off people who might not have come out from the Right but also pissed off many veterans who normally vote Democratic.

And what makes things worse is that you don’t have any of the leaders on the left telling this putz to shut up and apologize.

Instead he acts like the D student he was at Yale.

I can just see the TV ads now until the end of election day with Kerry making his stupid comments over and over again and President Bush actually looking like a strong leader defending our military.

Once again thank you John Kerry.
X-Mas has come early once again for the GOP.

Posted by: Thank You John Kerry at November 1, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #192194

Thank you John Kerry

You do not really believe that this bungled statement by Kerry is really going to have some sort of widespread effect in regards to how people vote do you?
eople are
I have no idea what Kerry was doing trying to make a joke. (I do not believe joking is part of his wishy washy nature) It obviously was a fraudien slip. And of course “W” is trying to capitalize on that slip out of last minute desperation for his failing party.

Anybody with an open mind and an iota of intelligence can see this for what it is and will realize that it has no relevance in the larger scheme of things. Of course the media will latch onto it like a hungry vampire at feeding time and run it into the ground for a few days. As they do with all oppurtunities of sensationalism. Business as usual. I think “W” is probably elated and having an orgasm knowing that he is not the only one who can mangle words. And everyone knows that there is absolutely no love lost between the two. (and who really cares) If “W” had to apologize every time he made a fraudien slip(of course I am not sure his were fraudien in as much as the relult of just not being very bright) over the last six years it would require a book the size of several novels to contain them all.

The only thing that will affect this election at this point is voter turn out and whether or not “W” can convince the evangelical masses that his party is moraly stable and headed in the right direction.

The last time I checked his job approval ratings had not improved one bit. After all this election is not as local as the repubs claim it is. The voters of this nation will be making a statement at the local level about how they feel in regards to the ineptitude, corruption and apparently not so moral values of the clowns currently in charge.

GOOD LUCK with your early Christmas

Posted by: Ric at November 1, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #192211


I find it amusing that when the media runs over and over every single detail, no matter how irrelevent or insignificant, of the Mark Foley scandal its just the media doing a good job about running the truth down. But wait until it says anything about a Democrat, especially when he says something so profoundly stupid that I’m surprised I’m not seeing accusations against Rove saying that he used Sith Mind Control against Kerry as this is just the gift Rove would want. Kerry is a disgrace. At the minimum his joke was in poor taste. As it is, as Soldier deployed in Iraq, I find Kerry’s remarks not only insulting but disgusting as well. I further believe this is the attitude of some very far left people (like a few professors and fellow students I met at college) who continue to hold the view that those in the military just can’t hack it on the outside and are baby-murdering knuckle draggers. (both names I was called on several occasions while in college.)

Posted by: 1LT B at November 1, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #192246

Thank You and 1LT B-

Didn’t you guys already beat John Kerry? Does it really make you feel as if the tide has turned simply because you beat up on the same guy again? Well, what about all the great points he made about people with no war experience leading troops into harms way while simultaniously attacking dissenting veterans’ characters at home? Are those points now less valid because he made a speaking blunder?

I agree that the comments were newsworthy, although I’m not convinced he intended to disparage soldiers directly. He should apologize for the misunderstanding though. He can still attack republicans if he felt taken out of context, but he should clear the air first.

But, come on now, trying to turn one bad line by a past loser into some kind of revitalization of the republican party is hilarious. And being repulsed by the comments is one thing, but 1LT B, you do realize that his point was that we should be promoting eduaction, right? I mean, his intentions were noble, and his criticisms of the current state of affairs were valid…he just made one bad supporting statement. You have to take it for what its worth, and only what its worth. Not turn it into something more. It was not an anti-war or anti military speach. He tried to sound human and satirical, and he sucked at it. Didn’t we already know this about him?

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 1, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #192247

1LT B-
His joke was against Bush, and its context illustrates that. When a poor choice of words is the best the Republican Party can appeal to for hope, the the desperation is obvious.

You can believe what you want about us, but that doesn’t change who we really are. It’s been insulting to be berated all these years by the self-appointed guardians of American defense, only to have them screw up something this major and try to weasel their way out of responsibility.

I guess it all depends on whether you view the Vietnam War as a failure of Media Relations and American will, or whether you recognize that our problems were strategical flaws relating to our failure to get the South Vietnamese to stand up on their own.

As with Iraq, the winning or the losing of the war always depended on being able to leave the place alone when all was said and done.

You are siding with the people who have made it difficult to impossible to deal with the problems you are faced with everyday. You are siding with people for whom after-war planning was an after thought. You are siding with a Secretary of Defense who has strangled America’s ability to fight this war with his micromanagement and inability to cooperate with other departments. You are siding with people who failed to listen to people like you when putting together the plan.

This isn’t about Democrat or Republican when it comes down to it. Democrats are no longer the pacifist party they were in the wreckage following Vietnam. You would never have been sent to Iraq, in that case.

The problem, when it really comes down to it, is that winning the war of politics at home, trying to artificially charge up the American will and pump up its morale has taken precedence over effective policy making and discussion. It’s like trying to use a telescope from the wrong in. Win over there, and you get the strengthening of will and the raising of morale for free.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #192257

Stephen D.-

Do you really believe whole-heartedly that he was intending the joke to be on Bush’s lack of “war-smarts”?

I personally believe that the greater point was the importance of education and Bush’s being innept, but I think he may have gotten a little too comfortable and said what he said. I mean, it makes sense from that perspective because it is still a critique on Bush to say that he is relegating America’s most hopeless to an unjust and unwinnable war.

This is, in fact, a popular and honest view from a lot of left and right leaning people I know (more left though). It is somewhat supported by fact (one example is recruitment methods in poor neighborhoods), but also there are a great many exceptions. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if he found that to be, in the heat of the moment, a logical point to make and didn’t foresee the negative consequences. The problem is that it is offensive to those who are fighting, and that is why he should at least clear the air.

I’m sure he is much less critical of the military personnel as their leadership. It cannot be said that he wishes any ill on enlisted men and women. Worst case scenario is that he is a pompous ass with noble intentions. The perfect senator for the state of Mass, right?

Anyway, I was wondering if you are buying his explaination wholesale or not?

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 1, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #192275

First of all I think it should be known I am not a supporter of John Kerry. I also am not a supporter of corruption and feeling as though the government is preying upon its citizens weaknesses in order to further its own agenda with disregard to the desires of their constituency.

I do agree that what he said was profoundly stupid. But that does not change the fact that it was a fraudien slip. If it had been intended as it came out then yes it would have been in poor taste. But the intent was not there. I guess if you want to believe so then that is your right and you should feel offended. I personally do not see the republican claimed intent at all.

To compare this to media coverage of the foley scandal is ubsurd. The man is a sexual predator who was working at a high level of our government. It needed to be and was rightfully exposed. (should have been exposed much much sooner)A bad joke gone bad is hardly a matter of moral conern. Maybe,tastless yes, but of a total differnt nature.

Personally I do not believe that the attitude that military people are of a lesser class is solely a far left enigma. I served in Vietnam and was on the last plane out at the time of all base closings. To be honest watching the Vietnamese people ripping furniture out of the buildings and generally trashing everything in site as we left was disheartening. And you know what, when I returned home there was no welcome wagon or people standing in line saying job well done. And when I told people where I had been, I got those looks of concern. (wondering if I was a manical baby killer etc) Of course back in those days we had the draft. If you were a college student or had rich parents you probably had a pretty good chance of avoiding the draft and having to serve. As a result the less fortunate of us (lower class citizens) made up the bulk of troops who fought that war. There will always be a faction of people, left or right who exhibit no class and somehow feel they are better than you because of their wealth, education, beliefs, or whatever, and often they will not hestitate to voice just that. (a true indicator of thier class) I have gotten over it, but not forgotten. I am sorry but to imply that this is only a far left trait is just not correct.

As a soldier stationed in Iraq, I truly wish you well and hope that you are getting everything you need to safely survive in that chaotic mess of a war. I do not believe that we will ever be able to make things right over there, much the same as when I was in Nam. Hopefully we can find a way to bring you all home in the near future without loosing too much pride.

Posted by: Ric at November 1, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #192283

Stephen D

I think that pompous ass with noble intentions sums it up nicely. However it should have read “A pompous ass with noble intentions, hoping to run for the presidency again and who harbours a deep hatred for “W”.

Posted by: Ric at November 1, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #192341


Nice post.

The “pompous ass” statement was actually mine. Your add ons, while quite possibly true, are merely speculation. I wanted to keep it factual. I will give you this: the speech WAS very much anti-Bush. There were zero other references to the academic resumes of military personnel. I think it is safe to say Kerry was actively trying to promote the things Bush has ignored and cut, like education funding, and belittle Bush at the same time. In doing so, he just hapenned to let something slip that was in poor taste, and only sorta true. Not the end of the world, but a reason to apologize nonetheless.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 1, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #192352

Kevin 23

Sorry for the mix up Kevin. I like to give credit where it is due. I agree that the speech was pretty much anti-bush. I also believe that Kerry in realizing this vote will be a referendum by the American people on Bush was intentionally slamming him to further fuel the firestorm surrounding the administration with the intention of helping his party. Good intentions gone bad due to a slip of the tongue by way of a major brain fart. I see now that he has apologized, hopefully we can all now move on to real issues.

Posted by: Ric at November 1, 2006 3:53 PM
Comment #192426


To steal a quote from the man of the hour: “Would that it were.”

I predict more of the same until 11/7…then more of the same.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 1, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #192445

Karl Rove is a Genius (not)

While having a discussion the other day one of my associates mentioned that Karl Rove is a genius. After I finished vomiting I explained my position on that matter. I think Karl Rove is a diabolical and a criminal.

Since he is agnostic he is not weakened by the dogma that believers have. He takes advantage of a group of people that rely on faith to make decisions that affect their lives. There is nothing genius about that. Taking advantage of the weak-minded is easy. Just look at the TV evangelicals for one example.

Assassinating the character of anyone who opposes his way of thinking is another of his strategies this takes a corrupt person to accomplish this task.

A genius would be able to bring these people up, educate them on the issues, talk about the real issues, solve problems, do the right thing and still win an election. Just look at what we now have. What the USA has become. He is no genius he is a traitor at most diabolical and criminal at least.

Posted by: Frank at November 1, 2006 7:32 PM
Comment #192482

Kevin 23

That really is the catch 22 isn’t it. Even with change there will be no real discernable change. I think that we all hope for improvement, but deep down in the back of our minds we know it will probably be business as usual. Just a differnt set of bosses.

Perhaps someday we will see true election reform, and accountability for our election officials. I think these people should be subject to yearly evaluations and any pay raises should be allowed only after their constituancy has approved them. Lets face it they live in a fantasy world where they get to write their own rules, regulations and pay raises. Not to mention they don’t even have to report in to work a good deal of the time. What a sweet deal!

Posted by: Ric at November 1, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #192487

Is that true? Why haven’t the dems jumped on that piece of information? I mean if it’s true, talk about hypocritical! Funny how the party of “morals” and fears of gay people have one hell of a lot of them. If I was a strategist, I’d be all over that.

Posted by: phyl at November 1, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #192489


Judging by the amount of recorded contacts between the white house, Rove and Jack Abramof we may very well see the day when he is convicted of a crime. I don’t know about diabolical status but he certainly is your quintessential republican spin artist.

I don’t know that he is a genius. But he certainly was very good at what he does (motivate voters) for a time. I think though that with the advent of realization by the majority of Americans that these people are less than honest and have been manipulating them for years, his days of glory are rapidly coming to an end. He has lost the trust of many of the republican party followers and will be very hard pressed to ever regain it.

Posted by: Ric at November 1, 2006 8:50 PM
Post a comment