There are currently 8 users and 199 guests online.
Edwards v. Rove: Sept. 26 at University at Buffalo
Submitted by bizgrrl on Sat, 2008/07/05 - 9:53am.
This should be interesting. Why is John Edwards willing to get on the same stage as Karl Rove?
"It’s actually good for the Democratic process,” he [Joshua Dyck, assistant professor of political science at UB] said. “People vote because politics is a lot like sports. Rooting for your team probably doesn’t affect the outcome much, but people can say ‘I was there.’ ”
Carville would have been more entertaining. Edwards is too serious. Surely nobody takes Rove seriously? He needs to be mocked, and Carville is just the guy for the job.
Actually, Rove should be treated as a serious criminal, and Edwards might be just the attorney for the job. It would be fascinating if Edwards confronts him on what big contributors got for their donations and why it takes billions to run for President. And of course Edwards could ask him about WHIG and Plame and torture and the U.S. Attorney firings and all the things that were more important than addressing the threat from al Qaeda during those giddy pre-9/11 months when all the long-term, no-bid military contracts were being awarded to crony firms like KBR and tax breaks were falling on the wealthy like confetti.
I'm sure there will be ground rules, lots and lots of ground rules, forbidden words, stricken topics, limits, constraints and other testaments to Republican respect for freedom and honesty.
Submitted by JosephBaileyOne on Sun, 2008/07/06 - 5:25pm.
What about Obama? Are you going to rip him for being a money juggernaut too?
Also, it is time to put to rest the pre-9/11 junk. Clinton had eight years to get bin Laden, and in light of how bin Laden's work start in 1993 with the first WTC bombing, the '98 Embassy attacks, enough is enough on all of this finger-pointing.
The only finger-pointing needs to be at the al-Qaeda terrorists, as they are the ones doing the killing. It is no more Bush's fault for 9/11 than Clinton's. It is the fault of the criminal terrorists and looking back with such arrogance that America should not have let 9/11 happen is as divisive as anything that you could say about it. There were 3,000 victims on 9/11, not to mention the hundreds more since 1979-when terrorism against the USA started in earnest, and the only ones to blame are the radical's who seek to kill every last America, regardless of political party affiliation.
The real tragedy of 9/11 lies with the terrorists but the distraction that Bill Clinton created for himself and then the obsession that the GOP Congress had were the main reasons that no "big picture" focus was put on terrorism in the late 1990's. I am sick of Democrat's defending Clinton lying under oath and on national television as well as the GOP defenders, who should have used the Congress to censure Clinton and that is all, who cannot admit that their obsession with impeaching Clinton led to a distraction from terrorism related issues.
It is time that this nation of 300 million citizens realize that the terrorists are the only one to blame for anything. That ii is their actions alone that are the issue and that whatever disagreements we have as a nation in confronting the terrorists-until they are all dead-is okay but that the terrorists are the issue. When the MOUTH's of each side run off about the blame game they are doing the very thing that terrorists want in distracting the blame from them. Well, I for one will not take my focus off of them and if I disagree with another citizen about to best hunt them down and kill them, we may disagree but I will not insult another American's integrity, including the President, on it.
The U.S. Constitution, it is what makes us free and makes us American. Let's treat it as such and with care.
Are you going to rip him for being a money juggernaut too?
If he turns the U.S. Treasury into an all-you-can-eat buffet for his big contributors like Bush did, sure, but he's going to have to get elected first AND be as much of a slut as Bush. Even then, though, Rove would still be a better person to ask about why campaigning has become so grotesquely expensive.
As for Rove being a serious criminal, that is a separate matter. He is currently in contempt of Congress for not testifying about the U.S. Attorney firings. He was deeply involved in the destruction of a significant CIA asset, Brewster & Jennings, for which no one has been held accountable. His track record as a liar speaks for itself, with invading Iraq to prevent a WMD attack being the biggest, except maybe for getting Bush re-elected.
Whether Bush or Clinton or anyone else could have prevented the 9/11 attacks is a hypothetical matter. What is not hypothetical is that Clinton handed Bush a ready-to-launch plan against al Qaeda, but Bush did not act on it until Sept. 4, 2001. All I did was state the facts, so your whining about finger pointing is largely beside the point. I didn't say Bush could have prevented the attacks, just that terrorism was a low priority, which no doubt contributed to his horrible overreaction that played right into the terrorists' hand.
What is truly divisive in these sorts of discussions is Republicans denying reality. They've spent eight years refusing to believe anything that makes them uncomfortable and insisting that they get to define the debate. I will give you credit for recognizing that impeaching Clinton distracted the nation from terrorism at a critical juncture, but we have only moved on to other distractions. That is pretty much Karl Rove's specialty, distracting voters from the important issues and getting them to fixate on gay marriage or whatever bullshit leverage point he can seize.
The GOP leadership and their huge stable of media tools are still in denial about Bush's failings, but Republican voters picked the candidate least like Bush. Republican leadership has no integrity left, and until they are willing to accept that some fingers should be pointed their way, they will only grow more irrelevant.
Carville would have been more entertaining. Edwards is too serious. Surely nobody takes Rove seriously? He needs to be mocked, and Carville is just the guy for the job.
Actually, Rove should be treated as a serious criminal, and Edwards might be just the attorney for the job. It would be fascinating if Edwards confronts him on what big contributors got for their donations and why it takes billions to run for President. And of course Edwards could ask him about WHIG and Plame and torture and the U.S. Attorney firings and all the things that were more important than addressing the threat from al Qaeda during those giddy pre-9/11 months when all the long-term, no-bid military contracts were being awarded to crony firms like KBR and tax breaks were falling on the wealthy like confetti.
I'm sure there will be ground rules, lots and lots of ground rules, forbidden words, stricken topics, limits, constraints and other testaments to Republican respect for freedom and honesty.
What about Obama? Are you going to rip him for being a money juggernaut too?
Also, it is time to put to rest the pre-9/11 junk. Clinton had eight years to get bin Laden, and in light of how bin Laden's work start in 1993 with the first WTC bombing, the '98 Embassy attacks, enough is enough on all of this finger-pointing.
The only finger-pointing needs to be at the al-Qaeda terrorists, as they are the ones doing the killing. It is no more Bush's fault for 9/11 than Clinton's. It is the fault of the criminal terrorists and looking back with such arrogance that America should not have let 9/11 happen is as divisive as anything that you could say about it. There were 3,000 victims on 9/11, not to mention the hundreds more since 1979-when terrorism against the USA started in earnest, and the only ones to blame are the radical's who seek to kill every last America, regardless of political party affiliation.
The real tragedy of 9/11 lies with the terrorists but the distraction that Bill Clinton created for himself and then the obsession that the GOP Congress had were the main reasons that no "big picture" focus was put on terrorism in the late 1990's. I am sick of Democrat's defending Clinton lying under oath and on national television as well as the GOP defenders, who should have used the Congress to censure Clinton and that is all, who cannot admit that their obsession with impeaching Clinton led to a distraction from terrorism related issues.
It is time that this nation of 300 million citizens realize that the terrorists are the only one to blame for anything. That ii is their actions alone that are the issue and that whatever disagreements we have as a nation in confronting the terrorists-until they are all dead-is okay but that the terrorists are the issue. When the MOUTH's of each side run off about the blame game they are doing the very thing that terrorists want in distracting the blame from them. Well, I for one will not take my focus off of them and if I disagree with another citizen about to best hunt them down and kill them, we may disagree but I will not insult another American's integrity, including the President, on it.
The U.S. Constitution, it is what makes us free and makes us American. Let's treat it as such and with care.
Are you going to rip him for being a money juggernaut too?
If he turns the U.S. Treasury into an all-you-can-eat buffet for his big contributors like Bush did, sure, but he's going to have to get elected first AND be as much of a slut as Bush. Even then, though, Rove would still be a better person to ask about why campaigning has become so grotesquely expensive.
As for Rove being a serious criminal, that is a separate matter. He is currently in contempt of Congress for not testifying about the U.S. Attorney firings. He was deeply involved in the destruction of a significant CIA asset, Brewster & Jennings, for which no one has been held accountable. His track record as a liar speaks for itself, with invading Iraq to prevent a WMD attack being the biggest, except maybe for getting Bush re-elected.
Whether Bush or Clinton or anyone else could have prevented the 9/11 attacks is a hypothetical matter. What is not hypothetical is that Clinton handed Bush a ready-to-launch plan against al Qaeda, but Bush did not act on it until Sept. 4, 2001. All I did was state the facts, so your whining about finger pointing is largely beside the point. I didn't say Bush could have prevented the attacks, just that terrorism was a low priority, which no doubt contributed to his horrible overreaction that played right into the terrorists' hand.
What is truly divisive in these sorts of discussions is Republicans denying reality. They've spent eight years refusing to believe anything that makes them uncomfortable and insisting that they get to define the debate. I will give you credit for recognizing that impeaching Clinton distracted the nation from terrorism at a critical juncture, but we have only moved on to other distractions. That is pretty much Karl Rove's specialty, distracting voters from the important issues and getting them to fixate on gay marriage or whatever bullshit leverage point he can seize.
The GOP leadership and their huge stable of media tools are still in denial about Bush's failings, but Republican voters picked the candidate least like Bush. Republican leadership has no integrity left, and until they are willing to accept that some fingers should be pointed their way, they will only grow more irrelevant.
Actually, Rove should be treated as a serious criminal, and Edwards might be just the attorney for the job.
Excellent point. Now that really would be entertaining.
Yes, Carville and Rove would be a good match as they are the top two political strategists of the last 16 years. Rove may very well eat Edwards alive.
The U.S. Constitution, it is what makes us free and makes us American. Let's treat it as such and with care.
Post new comment