I read where Bush's, Rudolf Hess, as Bush put it, “Is going on down the road.” What do you suppose prompted that?:o

I think it is the end of the Bush term ;just 16 months left and Rove is looking to his future. He has to hook up with a national campaign soon before the primary season comes to an end in Jan. or Feb.

By the way ;was George Stephanopoulos Bill Clinton's Rudolph Hess ?:confused:

I think it is the end of the Bush term ;just 16 months left and Rove is looking to his future. He has to hook up with a national campaign soon before the primary season comes to an end in Jan. or Feb.

btw ;was George Stephanopoulos Bill Clinton's Rudolph Hess ?:confused:

Stephanopoulos, Naw, not at all; Rudolph Hess was Hitler’s closest advisor and good friend.

I think you make a good point about the possible reason for his leaving now; there have been all sorts of reckless comments made by the Democratic left… we will soon have an idea, particularly if he remains active in Politics.

He was a whipping boy for the libs personifying everything they see wrong with American politics. It was in fact impossible for one person beyond the President himself to have had such an influence. It is like the almost mythical influence they attach to VP Cheney. It makes for a great narrative the comparisons to Rasputin (or Hess) but it isn't true.
There isn't a policy that Bush right or wrong would not have initiated if Rove wasn't an adviser to him .

The libs in their attempt to get Rove have sicked a Special Prosecutor on him (he went in front of the grand jury 5 times ) and have held countless "oversight " investigations . They haven't laid a glove on him . The only thing they have thrown at him that sticks is that he orchestrates winning elections . That makes him evil personified .

Even his supposed big failure can not be pinned only on him . His ambition was to create the equivalent of a Republican majority that rivaled the Democrat control of Congress for 40 years . That could not have happened in such a polarized environment as we have had since the post Vietnam era began . The truth is that with little room for error he got the President elected and re-elected .

It did not help him that the President and the Congress both forgot the reasons they were elected and became mirror images of each other when it came to spending our tax dollars.

Edit :

Byron York at National Review has an article that details the points I tried to raise.

Byron York on Karl Rove on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjgxZDM4OGMwZjkxYWUzZjNiNzk5MDNmNTViNzgzMWQ=)


Now, however, having won control of the House and Senate, Democrats can conduct their own investigations and issue their own subpoenas, and Rove is again in their sights. Getting Rove would be getting the president, and Democrats are pushing hard to force Rove to testify in the U.S. attorneys matter. So far, the White House has refused, setting up a confrontation that won't change whether Rove is on or off the administration payroll. (As for Rove himself, he'll still have to deal with congressional investigators, but he won't have to deal with them and with his full-time White House job.)

Amid all the investigating, the White House as a whole has entered the unavoidable slump that comes as a president approaches the second half of his second term. Some long-time staff members have left, and others are thinking about it. Against that backdrop, Rove's departure is not a surprise, nor is it all that unusual. He really is tired, and he really wants to spend more time with his family. But this day has its roots in a series of events that no one could have fully anticipated during that celebration on November 3, 2004.

He was a whipping boy for the libs personifying everything they see wrong with American politics. It was in fact impossible for one person beyond the President himself to have had such an influence. It is like the almost mythical influence they attach to VP Cheney. It makes for a great narrative the comparisons to Rasputin (or Hess) but it isn't true.
There isn't a policy that Bush right or wrong would not have initiated if Rove wasn't an adviser to him .

The libs in their attempt to get Rove have sicked a Special Prosecutor on him (he went in front of the grand jury 5 times ) and have held countless "oversight " investigations . They haven't laid a glove on him . The only thing they have thrown at him that sticks is that he orchestrates winning elections . That makes him evil personified .

Even his supposed big failure can not be pinned only on him . His ambition was to create the equivalent of a Republican majority that rivaled the Democrat control of Congress for 40 years . That could not have happened in such a polarized environment as we have had since the post Vietnam era began . The truth is that with little room for error he got the President elected and re-elected .

It did not help him that the President and the Congress both forgot the reasons they were elected and became mirror images of each other when it came to spending our tax dollars.

edit :

Byron York at National Review has an article that details the points I tried to raise.

Byron York on Karl Rove on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjgxZDM4OGMwZjkxYWUzZjNiNzk5MDNmNTViNzgzMWQ=)
I largely agree with all you say, and maybe you are right about the policies having been the same, but with Rove as with Hess, it was how the policies were framed that Rove and Hess made their contribution.

Here's my question:

With Rove gone, and Scooter Libby gone, and Gonzales probably gone, what's left for the libs to and moan about?

Elliot

Here's my question:

With Rove gone, and Scooter Libby gone, and Gonzales probably gone, what's left for the libs to and moan about?

Elliot
I don’t know, but I can guarantee they will find something.

:rolleyes:

Hello DC:

Rove has spent the last six and a half years improperly and dangerously politicizing the federal government. He did so unashamedly, too proclaiming a Republican permanency. Indeed, he might have accomplished this task without breaking any law, or at least he avoided being caught breaking any law.

But, what he did do should be troubling to right wingers too. Once elected, an administration serves ALL the people. This one did not and instead tried to fix the process. If that's OK with you (and it's not), and he gets away with it, you're sure not going to like it very much WHEN Democrats do it too, as they surly will.

I don't expect that you'll find fault because Rove is a Republican. I would hope, however, that you'd find fault because YOU'RE an American.

excon

what's left for the libs to and moan about?


There is still VP Cheney in their sights . I believe there is an impeachment movement in the works by Dennis Kucinich . http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/int3.pdf

Also they still think they can bully Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton .

what's left for the libs to and moan about?

Elliot

That's easy:

1. The "fairness doctrine";
2. General Petraeus's success in Iraq;
3. The "vast right wing conspiracy";
4. The fact that they're running out of false Nazi analogies;
5. FISA reform;
6. Tax breaks for the wealthy Americans;
7. Global warming;
8. Why Conservatives insist on calling National Healthcare "socialized medicine";
9. Wal-Mart;
10. Coming soon: Why Hillary didn't win.

And for Elliot to moan about, people who answer rhetorical questions with lists. :p

it was how the policies were framed that Rove and Hess made their contribution.


Politics in this country have always been a game of hard ball. I could go as far back as the pamphleteering of the founders with their pseudonyms or perhaps to FDR's principal henchman and long time political adviser Louis Howe .


Louis McHenry Howe made a career out of being "the man behind Roosevelt." His closeness to Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt made him somewhat of a curiosity. Certainly, his appearance was not that of a statesman, the type of man expected to be the right hand of the president of the United States. Instead, he was fragile and small in stature, sickly and disheveled in appearance, described in the press as "ghoulish" and a "mediaeval gnome," Howe inspired legends concerning his power over the president. Making light of the name-calling, Howe responded by printing personal cards with the title, "Colonel Louis Rasputin Voltaire Talleyrand Simon Legree Howe"; playing on the many famous characters to whom he had been boldly likened. He favored The New York Times' description of him as "The President's Other I." The New York Herald Tribune stated of him, "His loyalty is not to himself, or to an abstract ideal of government, but solely to Franklin D. Roosevelt." He was in truth one of the most influential characters in the making of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt's political careers and perhaps most widely known under the title, "king-maker."...


Certainly, power and success were important to Howe. He had little regard for those who were not vital to Roosevelt's political career. As Eleanor Roosevelt stated of him, "He made few personal friends and he judged most of those by their loyalty to ‘The Boss' as he called my husband." It is widely accepted that as an influential political adviser and personal friend of Roosevelt, Howe was supreme. To what degree and in exactly what areas his influence was manifested, however, is a point of much dispute. As one biographer states of him, "He was the ‘most private' of the President's private secretaries. He talked with Roosevelt daily; no one knew what they said. On a given matter he might have immense impact - or none at all."


The American Experience | Eleanor Roosevelt | People & Events | Louis Howe (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eleanor/peopleevents/pande04.html)

It can be said that he orchestrated in the Democrat dominance of Congress for 60 years. The question is how was this achieved ?

What is now recognized as textbook Democrat class warfare he regularly portrayed Republicans as "economic royalists" and "privileged princes of economic dynasties" who wished to impose upon their fellow Americans an "industrial dictatorship." Republicans were painted as callous, cold-hearted, and mean spirited. The answer to this was to get Americans to put their faith in the federal gvt and to surrender their economic choice to the nanny state . When Republicans complained they subjected to a Hillary like taking point as a rebuttal . Roosevelt would say ""They are unanimous in their hatred for me -- and I welcome their hatred."

Yes the politics of division was invented long before Karl Rove .

I think it also useful to note that Bush came into the White House trying to build a consensus government . That meant that he went along with legislation like NCLB that was a Teddy Kennedy initiative. Cooperation was a one way street however as we saw in their treatment of his nominees to the courts and to proposed legislation like Social Security Reform.

Politics in this country have always been a game of hard ball. I could go as far back as the pamphleteering of the founders with their pseudonyms or perhaps to FDR's prinicipal henchman and long time political adviser Louis Howe .




The American Experience | Eleanor Roosevelt | People & Events | Louis Howe (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eleanor/peopleevents/pande04.html)

It can be said that he orchestrated in the Democrat dominance of Congress for 60 years. The question is how was this achieved ?

What is now recognized as textbook Democrat class warfare he regularly portrayed Repubicans as "economic royalists" and "privileged princes of economic dynasties" who wished to impose upon their fellow Americans an "industrial dictatorship." Republicans were painted as callous, cold-hearted, and mean spirited. The answer to this was to get Americans to put their faith in the federal gvt and to surrender their economic choice to the nanny state . When Republicans complained they subjected to a Hillary like taking point as a rebuttal . Roosevelt would say ""They are unanimous in their hatred for me -- and I welcome their hatred."

Yes the politics of division was invented long before Karl Rove .

I think it also useful to note that Bush came into the White House trying to build a consensus government . That meant that he went along with legislation like NCLB that was a Teddy Kennedy initiative. Cooperation was a one way street however as we saw in their treatment of his nominees to the courts and to proposed legislation like Social Security Reform.
This gets a little complicated because in my opinion, both Parties have subjected themselves to “economic royalists" and "privileged princes of economic dynasties."