Posts with the tag 'Karl Rove'
Denigrated on the left, loved on the right, Karl Rove opines on the Palin effect:
Former White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove predicted that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin “gives [John McCain] the ability to add two or three points nationally” to his vote total, a margin that could make a significant difference in what is expected to be a very close general election contest with Barack Obama.
Those points , according to Rove, who sat for an extended interview with The Fix and Newsweek executive editor Jon Meacham as part of the ongoing live web video coverage, will largely come from women but could also be the result of gains among blue collar, older men who “like the idea of a gun-toting woman.”
Rove also argued that Democrats have already “over played” their hand on Palin by putting out a statement — from the Obama campaign — that cast her as an inexperienced, small town mayor. (Obama distanced himself from that statement and has been entirely praiseworthy of the governor in his comments since then.)
“They run a real risk of looking condescending,” warned Rove. “The same crowd played these cards against Clinton and it was a mistake.”
As we’ve seen, the Democrats and their kook left base have really unloaded on not just Sarah Palin, but her entire family - ultimately, it will be up to Sarah Palin to put them in their place by remained in control and giving a good acceptance speech. Once past that, all the dirt the left has tried to throw at her will fade away as no one other than kook leftists will care. Follow up a good acceptance speech by clobbering Biden in debate (almost a foregone conclusion) and Governor Palin will not just do her part for John McCain, but open up her own Presidential prospects for 2012 or 2016.
Tags: 2008 Campaign, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin
September 2nd, 2008
I can hear liberal heads exploding as I write this - Karl Rove, the 2008 election and national security:
Just a year ago it was almost universally accepted that Iraq would wreck the GOP chances in November. Now the issue may pose a threat to the Democratic efforts to gain power. For while the American people are acknowledging the positive impact of the surge, Democratic leaders are not.
In September, Mrs. Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus “the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief.” This week, she said “we’ll be right back at square one” in Iraq by this summer.
In December, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to admit progress, arguing, “The surge hasn’t accomplished its goals.” He said a month earlier there was “no progress being made in Iraq” and “it is not getting better, it is getting worse.”
Asked by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Feb. 9 if she was worried that the gains of the last year might be lost, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot back: “There haven’t been gains . . . This is a failure.” Carl Levin, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee told the Associated Press the same month that the surge “has failed.”
This passionate, persistent unwillingness to admit what more and more Americans are coming to believe is true about Iraq’s changing situation puts Democrats in dangerous political territory. For one thing, they increasingly appear out of touch with reality, a charge they made with some success at the administration’s expense before the surge began changing conditions in Iraq.
For another, Democrats appear to have an ideological investment in things going badly in Iraq. They seem upset and prickly when asked to comment on the progress America is making. It’s hard to see how Democrats can build a majority if their position on what they claim is one of the campaign’s central issues is shared by less than a fifth of the electorate.
That fifth, as Rove noted earlier in the article, is the number of Americans polled who said that we should have a timetable for a quick withdrawal from Iraq - while 60 oor 70% might not agree with President Bush’s particular handling of the war (and it should be understood that a very large portion of that group is people who wish President Bush were more aggressive), there is not in this nation anything approaching a majority who agree with the HillBama, Defeaticrat, kook left position on Iraq.
Part of the problem for our Defeaticrats is that they just can’t get over the past - really, it all goes back to Florida, 2000 and their unwillingness to forgive President Bush for preventing Gore from stealing Florida’s electoral votes…but to endlessly rehash Florida, even for kook lefties, would be absurd…so, the ongoing war is their meat, but their problem is that their views are frozen in 2003-2004. Convinced that BUSH LIED!!!! to get us into Iraq and that the announcements in 2004 (from such respected military men as Michael Moore) that we couldn’t win are valid, the only thing Defeaticrats want to do is talk about that, and demand as a result that we withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. Everything which has happened since 2004 is considered irrelevant - except the 2006 elections, which the kook left have convinced themselves were won largely on a Democrat pledge to end the war (even though no such pledge was made at any time in the 2006 campaign). They want us out of Iraq, and don’t care what the facts are - they own defeat and are insisting we carry out a defeat, lest their worldview suffer a crushing blow.
How will this play in November? That really remains to be seen - but its looking more and more like the HillBama position will be a millstone ’round the Democrats’ neck.
Tags: Defeaticrats, Iraq Campaign, Karl Rove
March 21st, 2008
Eddie Curran, who’s newspaper reporting prompted the investigations which eventually led to Siegelman’s conviction for bribery, writes an open letter (H/T Daddy Longlegs) to 60 Minutes about their report claiming a Rovian plot against Siegelman - it seems as more and more evidence comes in that not only is the story a complete fabrication, but that either 60 Minutes is run by idiots, or must have known full well they were putitng out a lie as news. Here’s one thing I found very interesting:
Dana Jill Simpson: I assume you are aware of her constantly expanding and evolving stories. That you even put her on television after reviewing these ever-evolving tales is incredible. Furthermore, you absolutely had to know of her association with the Siegelman and Scrushy legal teams that began, at the latest, in February of last year. Among other things, she has testified to doing what would appear to be an illegal credit check report on the judge who presided over the case.
We reporters in Alabama, no doubt because we’re dumb rednecks or being paid off by Republicans, have from the beginning seen Simpson for what she is: a very lonely person with a very – and this is your word – vivid imagination.
It would appear – or at least, CBS made it appear – that this particular Rove claim (there have already been several by her relating to her allegations that Rove was involved in the Siegelman administration)”) was new. This was suggested by Scott Pelley’s surprise, which I trust was not feigned.
As anyone who has ever worked in a newsroom knows, it is almost a daily occurrence for someone to come by or call and spin the most amazing stories. A few, a very few, are true. A decent reporter can usually tell the difference in about a minute.
The crazy ones are treated politely and ushered out the door as soon as possible. Considering her past stories — none corroborated by a single human being — 60 Minutes should never have interviewed her in the first place. However, after that mistake, once she started on the Rove tale, Pelley, the producers, the janitor, someone, should have pulled the switch.
As it stands right now, this supposed GOP operative Simpson cannot be found on the rolls of the Alabama GOP in any capacity - if she ever worked for the GOP, it was as an unpaid, low-level volunteer, not as Karl Rove’s Double-Secret-Probation agent, or whatever. Curran seems quite exercised over this Simpson story - and as he’s of the opinion that Rove was behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, it can’t be because Curran is some Rove plant…he’s just an honest reporter who likes to report the truth as best he can determine it. Doesn’t mean he’ll never make a mistake, but it does mean he won’t broadcast a lie either deliberately or via gross negligence…and it is extraordinarily charitible to give CBS the benefit of the doubt and state that gross negligence is the genesis of this story.
The only thing I can figure is that this is a belated attempt by 60 Minutes to make up for their Rathergate debacle in 2006 - in this case, I guess they decided that with no forged documents for the blogosphere to rip to shreds, they could get away with it…the problem seems to be that there’s not even the slightest shred of evidence to back of Simpson’s claims…a good lie, as any Democrat will tell you, requires at least a kernel of truth - such is lacking in this 60 Minutes story.
Tags: 60 Minutes, Dana Jill Simpson, Don Siegelman, Eddie Curran, Karl Rove, liberal lies
March 2nd, 2008
In the MSM’s desperate desire to smear all things GOP, 60 Minutes recently ran a hit piece on Karl Rove, somehow trying to blame Mr. Rove for the downfall of Alabama’s corrupt, former Democratic governor Don Siegelman - the Alabama GOP has responded to the smear:
Dear Mr. Pelley,
Last Sunday, you aired a piece on 60 Minutes that I consider a broad, frontal and unfair attack on our Republican president, his one-time top advisor, Alabama’s Republican Governor and our party, in general. The report included an interview with a small town attorney, Dana Jill Simpson, who outrageously claimed that Karl Rove asked her to take explicit photos of Don Siegelman having improper extra-marital relations with “an aide” in 2001. Her interview with 60 Minutes was the first time her newest charge appeared, despite her having testified for several hours before a committee of the U.S. Congress, and was the first time she claimed having met with Mr. Rove.
Most importantly, neither Dana Jill Simpson, nor your story or your network provided one shred of evidence that her charges had any merit or kernel of truth.
In contrast, the Wednesday, February 27, edition of the Birmingham News printed an interview with Mr. Rove in which he vehemently denies Simpson’s charges and expresses deep frustration in 60 Minutes’ failure to obtain evidence of any relationship between them before airing such an explosive story. He further denies knowing Simpson, meeting or speaking with her or even having knowledge of the Siegelman prosecution beyond what he learned from traditional media coverage…
Given the serious nature of the charges, and the fact that 60 Minutes’ reputation as a reliable news source is once again at stake, I am asking that you publicly produce any evidence that was provided to you which substantiates Simpson’s claims…
If you are unable to publicly produce hard and convincing evidence that backs the outrageous charges you aired to millions of viewers across the nation, I ask that you publicly retract the story on your next broadcast. The most basic journalistic ethics would demand as much.
I find it difficult to believe that Karl Rove, in his first year of White House service in 2001 and dealing with the aftereffects of September 11, could find time to concentrate his attention on an Alabama governor’s race more than one year away. Even more difficult to believe is that Rove knew Simpson, would meet with her or send her on the absurd assignments that she claims. Only the most committed anti-Rove/Bush activist could swallow such a tale.
60 Minutes’ disdain for the Republican Party brought you embarrassment when you ran a bogus and fraudulent story in the fall of 2004 about President Bush and his National Guard record, and your organization ultimately admitted to not having followed “basic journalistic principles”. I fear that unless you are able to provide the hard evidence requested, it is apparent that 60 Minutes did not learn anything from that embarrassing event in your history.
I eagerly await your reply.
Sincerely,
Rep. Mike Hubbard
Chairman, Alabama Republican Party
It is high time we brought the MSM to account for their grossly irresponsible lies - even if it requires reform of our libel laws to allow public figures a real opportunity to counter-attack against false media stories. This story about Rove is not just absurd - its stupidly absurd. You’d have to be a monumental idiot to lend it any credibility at all - or, failing that, an anti-Rove/Bush fanatic, as Mr. Hubbard observes. A person is free to be an anti-Rove fanatic if they desire, but the MSM should not be producing news stories written by such - at least not without a disclaimer, “Warning, the story you are about to see is false, but fanatic lefties will love it”.
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has more…
Tags: 60 Minutes, Dana Jill Simpson, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove, liberal lies, media bias
February 28th, 2008
When Karl Rove talks about politics, wise people listen. Most importantly - he’s pointing out that making sweeping predictions at this point is foolhardy.
Tags: Campaign Diary, Karl Rove
February 3rd, 2008
Robert Stacy McCain posts his reaction to Raw Story’s ridiculous claim that former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, who was last year convicted of corruption and is now serving a 7-year federal sentence, was the victim a GOP-plot orchestrated by Karl Rove.
I think we should also have Raw Story look into whether or not Karl Rove planted the $90,000 bribe money in William Jefferson’s freezer. Maybe they should also determine if Karl Rove was behind the shady land deal between Barack Obama and Tony Rezko.
Tags: culture of corruption, Don Siegelman, Karl Rove, Rovian conspiracy
December 18th, 2007
On Fox News Sunday, and Rove’s reaction was the same as mine:
WALLACE: Let’s — because there’s a lot of stuff out there, so let’s hone in on a couple of things, and let’s talk, first of all, about the economy, spending, taxes.
Congressman, all the Democratic presidential candidates, as Mr. Rove points out, talk about letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The Democratic chairman of House Ways and Means, Charlie Rangel, is proposing an income surtax on couples making more than $200,000 a year.
Won’t people like Karl Rove be able to say, as they’ve said over and over again, your party will raise taxes, his won’t?
VAN HOLLEN: We will not raise taxes, and if you look…
(LAUGHTER)
No, no, no. If you look at…
ROVE: Oh, no, no, no, no. Wait a minute.
VAN HOLLEN: Wait. You tell me — wait, wait, wait, wait. Karl, wait. No, no, listen.
Yeah, right…sure, Van Hollen…we believe you! We know that you Democrats are determined to allow Americans to keep more of what they earn…unless, of course, they are “rich”…but not rich like Ted Kennedy or Jay Rockefeller….we’re talking about the other rich, the one’s who work for a living…
Tags: Fox News Sunday, Karl Rove, taxes
December 3rd, 2007
