Karl Rove about to be indicted?

R

rumblebear

CAGiversary!
http://www.radarmagazine.com/the-wire/2005/10/05/index.php#wire_003399

Breaking! Plame Indictments Imminent


The D.C. Rumor mill is thrumming with whispers that 22 indictments are about to be handed down on the outed-CIA agent Valerie Plame case. The last time the wires buzzed this loud — that Tom DeLay would be indicted and would step down from his leadership post in the House — the scuttlebutters got it right.

Can it be a coincidence that the White House appears to be distancing President Bush from embattled aide Karl Rove? “He’s been missing in action at more than one major presidential event,” a member of the White House press corps tells us.

If the word on the street is right a second time, we have a bit of advice for Rove: Go with vertical stripes, they’re way more slimming.
 
However much republican candidates distance themselves, if people actually start going to trial, and, even moreso if people are convicted, it's going to damper any republicans chances of getting elected to the office of president.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']However much republican candidates distance themselves, if people actually start going to trial, and, even moreso if people are convicted, it's going to damper any republicans chances of getting elected to the office of president.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this, IF there were a viable candidate for the Democrats. Hillary? Kerry? Edwards? I mean, you need a good candidate to take advantage and, as of now, the Democrats don't have one.

That being said, continuing scandal in the adminstration certainly won't help a return to power by the Republicans.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I agree with this, IF there were a viable candidate for the Democrats. Hillary? Kerry? Edwards? I mean, you need a good candidate to take advantage and, as of now, the Democrats don't have one.

That being said, continuing scandal in the adminstration certainly won't help a return to power by the Republicans.[/QUOTE]

You forget - Kerry almost won last time around.
 
[quote name='camoor']You forget - Kerry almost won last time around.[/QUOTE]

He was crushed in the popular vote.

If you think a retread like Kerry would be a good candidate for the Democrats in 2008, then I hope you aren't giving advice to the DNC.
 
[quote name='sgs89']He was crushed in the popular vote.

If you think a retread like Kerry would be a good candidate for the Democrats in 2008, then I hope you aren't giving advice to the DNC.[/QUOTE]

Exactly how is losing by 3% being crushed?

Though clinton is a good candidate. She is consistantly improving in polls as well. In an actual election, her political savy will do even more to make up ground, and her connection with her husband is a benefit (since most people liked bill). Clinton is a heavy weight.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Exactly how is losing by 3% being crushed?

Though clinton is a good candidate. She is consistantly improving in polls as well. In an actual election, her political savy will do even more to make up ground, and her connection with her husband is a benefit (since most people liked bill). Clinton is a heavy weight.[/QUOTE]

OK, maybe he wasn't "crushed," but it was still a sizeable popular vote victory. Much larger margin than the "we got jobbed in Ohio" contingent would have you believe. In addition, GWB was the first candidate to get >50% of the popular vote since 1988.

As for Hillary, I think she is unelectable -- there are WAY too many people who detest her and view her as a thinly-disguised socialist. I predict she will not be the candidate.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']OBAMA!

kidding, but maybe in 20 years.[/QUOTE]

He is certainly a potential candidate in the future. He got off to a bad start, though, with his vote against confirming Roberts. Boy, voting against a fellow Harvard Law graduate, what a travesty...
 
[quote name='sgs89']He is certainly a potential candidate in the future. He got off to a bad start, though, with his vote against confirming Roberts. Boy, voting against a fellow Harvard Law graduate, what a travesty...[/QUOTE]

Harvard law grad is an amazing credential but it doesn't tell anything. I've had profs who were harvard grads and weren't half as innovative or intelligent as profs from Ole' Miss.

keep in mind that Ice T has a honorary degree from harvard.
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']Harvard law grad is an amazing credential but it doesn't tell anything. I've had profs who were harvard grads and weren't half as innovative or intelligent as profs from Ole' Miss.

keep in mind that Ice T has a honorary degree from harvard.[/QUOTE]

Harvard v. Ole Miss? I'll take my chances with the Crimson.

As for an "honorary" degree, now THAT isn't worth the paper it is printed on (assuming it is actually on paper).
 
[quote name='sgs89']OK, maybe he wasn't "crushed," but it was still a sizeable popular vote victory. Much larger margin than the "we got jobbed in Ohio" contingent would have you believe. In addition, GWB was the first candidate to get >50% of the popular vote since 1988.

As for Hillary, I think she is unelectable -- there are WAY too many people who detest her and view her as a thinly-disguised socialist. I predict she will not be the candidate.[/QUOTE]

well, Ross Perot was enough of a nuisance in 1992 and 1996 that getting 50% of the popular vote would have left the other two candidates in the dust. He retained a small amount of popularity in 1996, enough that it was pretty unlikely for any candidate to get over 50%. Then you have Nader in 2000, who, IIRC, received 3-4% of the popular vote (enough to skew a roughly even election).

Come 2004, so many liberals were furious with either Nader or themselves for giving their vote to Nader that he was a nonentity in the election (much like the libertarian and socialist candidates consistently are). So, if you want to be honest, you will say "GWB was the first candidate to get >50% of the popular vote since 1988, when we last had only two publicly recognized candidates."

I'm curious why people simply presume that Clinton is an extremist. Perhaps something she has advocated, or some legislation she had proposed that suggests she is the socialist she is labeled as? In the absence of evidence, simply developing public rapport is usually enough to dispel such assertions; god knows she's far better at that than, say, John Kerry or Bob Dole.

While I disagree that people's perception of Hillary as a socialist will ruin her campaign attempt (simply because I've seen nothing regarding public attitudes to support your claim), I will reluctantly admit that we, as a nation, are probably too frightened to get behind a female leader.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Harvard v. Ole Miss? I'll take my chances with the Crimson.

As for an "honorary" degree, now THAT isn't worth the paper it is printed on (assuming it is actually on paper).[/QUOTE]

granted, if I had to choose between 10 harvard grads and 10 ole miss grads and I'd go with the former.

I'm just sayin' the cred is not everything all the time. If it were, we wouldn't have Linus Pauling! :lol:
 
[quote name='sgs89']He was crushed in the popular vote.

If you think a retread like Kerry would be a good candidate for the Democrats in 2008, then I hope you aren't giving advice to the DNC.[/QUOTE]

Give me a break, I was saying that a weak candidate like Kerry ran a tight race against Bush. If you think losing by 3% is being crushed, then with your statistical prowess I hope you are giving advice to the Republicans.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']well, Ross Perot was enough of a nuisance in 1992 and 1996 that getting 50% of the popular vote would have left the other two candidates in the dust. He retained a small amount of popularity in 1996, enough that it was pretty unlikely for any candidate to get over 50%. Then you have Nader in 2000, who, IIRC, received 3-4% of the popular vote (enough to skew a roughly even election).

Come 2004, so many liberals were furious with either Nader or themselves for giving their vote to Nader that he was a nonentity in the election (much like the libertarian and socialist candidates consistently are). So, if you want to be honest, you will say "GWB was the first candidate to get >50% of the popular vote since 1988, when we last had only two publicly recognized candidates."

I'm curious why people simply presume that Clinton is an extremist. Perhaps something she has advocated, or some legislation she had proposed that suggests she is the socialist she is labeled as? In the absence of evidence, simply developing public rapport is usually enough to dispel such assertions; god knows she's far better at that than, say, John Kerry or Bob Dole.

While I disagree that people's perception of Hillary as a socialist will ruin her campaign attempt (simply because I've seen nothing regarding public attitudes to support your claim), I will reluctantly admit that we, as a nation, are probably too frightened to get behind a female leader.[/QUOTE]

Interesting points, but I think you stack the deck too much in your own favor by marginalizing Nader. The fact is that he WAS a third party candidate, just as Perot was in 1992. And the fact remains that GWB received greater than 50% of the vote and Clinton never did. As they say, "the facts is the facts."

As for why people perceive Hillary Clinton as a socialist, I submit her attempt to reform the health care system (a form of nationalized health care a la Canada), her statements about "it takes a village to raise a child," and long-standing support for increasing social programs. Now, I am not saying that I think she is a socialist, but you will have to admit that there is a strong perception out there to that effect. Even more than applied to her husband.

Sadly, I think you are probably correct that the USA is probably not quite ready for a female leader. It will happen in our lifetimes, though.
 
[quote name='camoor']Give me a break, I was saying that a weak candidate like Kerry ran a tight race against Bush. If you think losing by 3% is being crushed, then with your statistical prowess I hope you are giving advice to the Republicans.[/QUOTE]

You said "Kerry almost won." I said he didn't, at least not in the popular vote. So why do you have your panties in a bunch?
 
[quote name='sgs89']
Sadly, I think you are probably correct that the USA is probably not quite ready for a female leader. It will happen in our lifetimes, though.[/QUOTE]

Um, maybe in your life you're not so familiar with someone that makes you lose control?

missy_elliot.jpg
 
[quote name='evilmax17']God damn do I love Barack Obama.[/QUOTE]

fuckin' hell. He's nothing more than Weberian charismatic authority at this point. I like the guy, too (much like I must admit that, somehow, George W. Bush has some likability to him). But I haven't seen much evidence of his worth just yet (stirring DNC convention speech notwithstanding).

Then again, I'm in fucking Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning's constituency, so what the hell do I know?
 
[quote name='sgs89']OK, maybe he wasn't "crushed," but it was still a sizeable popular vote victory. Much larger margin than the "we got jobbed in Ohio" contingent would have you believe. In addition, GWB was the first candidate to get >50% of the popular vote since 1988.

As for Hillary, I think she is unelectable -- there are WAY too many people who detest her and view her as a thinly-disguised socialist. I predict she will not be the candidate.[/QUOTE]

Well, all he needed to win was ohio, were it was 51 to 49.

But hillary has very vocal people who hate her, just like reagan, just like her husband, and just like the current bush. There are die hard people who view them as the political devil. Polls indicate that she has the capability of winning, as over 50% of people say they would be very likely or somewhat likely to vote for her.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-26-hillary-poll_x.htmhttp://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/26/hillary.clinton/

If we've learned anything from dubya (other than chimps shouldn't be presidents) it's that the amount of supporters is more important than how vocal your detractors are.

As for bush getting over 50%, that's what happens when there is essentially no third party.
 
[quote name='sgs89']You said "Kerry almost won." I said he didn't, at least not in the popular vote. So why do you have your panties in a bunch?[/QUOTE]

3% is not almost?

Give it up man, every time you post you look more and more like a fool.

When you're in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging.
 
[quote name='camoor']3% is not almost?

Give it up man, every time you post you look more and more like a fool.

When you're in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging.[/QUOTE]

You, sir, are an idiot.

No, 3% is not almost. It was a sizeable popular vote victory for GWB. I know you don't like him, and you wish Kerry had won, but that doesn't change the facts.
 
[quote name='sgs89']You, sir, are an idiot.

No, 3% is not almost. It was a sizeable popular vote victory for GWB. I know you don't like him, and you wish Kerry had won, but that doesn't change the facts.[/QUOTE]

You are a loud-mouthed ass.

You keep changing your arguement - anyone reading this thread in it's entirety can tell that.

Kerry was not a strong candidate, but he managed to come close enough to George W Bush to prove that the Republicans could have been unseated if the Democrats had chosen a stronger candidate (especially because he would have won more votes if a Bush had bungled a random natural disaster sooner, a gas price increase had happened earlier or he had chosen an effective election campaign team sooner)

Sure, Bush's popular vote total, at 62,000,000, is the largest ever. However the second largest, at 59,000,000 belongs to, who is that? Oh it's KERRY.

You already admitted that "crushed" was the wrong term, but somehow you think you can win some credibility by attacking my motivations and making ridiculous assumptions about the candidates that I politically support. Yes, I wish Kerry had won but that has nothing to do with my assertion that he could have won. I never mentioned who I want to run in 2008, yet I will tell you now that it is certainly not Kerry (an assumption of yours that as far as I can tell was based on thin air).

[quote name='Sleepkyng']hey! lay off my pet chump![/QUOTE]

:lol:

For a moment I thought you said pet chunk - the guy argues so similarly to good ol' chunk that I wouldn't be surprised if they shared the same IP address...
 
It's not so much that Kerry was such a strong opponent, it's that people really disliked Bush.

In 2000 Bush basically ran on "I'm not Clinton" and it worked with a lot of the problem being Al Gore wasn't that strong of a candidate. In 2004 the Democrats tried to do the same thing by running Kerry as "I'm not Bush". Except the problem was in 2000 Bush had a strong name tie to him. He had most of buisness behind and was generally a fairly strong candidate (Still would have gotten his ass kicked by Clinton of course). In terms of actual substance of their campaigns, Kerry and Bush were a bit lopsided to Kerry's credit; however most in this country don't pay attenion to things like that. If Kerry would have presented more actual ideas for what to do and not general desires, we'd most likley be in a better position today than we are.
 
[quote name='camoor']You are a loud-mouthed ass.

You keep changing your arguement - anyone reading this thread in it's entirety can tell that.

Kerry was not a strong candidate, but he managed to come close enough to George W Bush to prove that the Republicans could have been unseated if the Democrats had chosen a stronger candidate (especially because he would have won more votes if a Bush had bungled a random natural disaster sooner, a gas price increase had happened earlier or he had chosen an effective election campaign team sooner)

Sure, Bush's popular vote total, at 62,000,000, is the largest ever. However the second largest, at 59,000,000 belongs to, who is that? Oh it's KERRY.

You already admitted that "crushed" was the wrong term, but somehow you think you can win some credibility by attacking my motivations and making ridiculous assumptions about the candidates that I politically support. Yes, I wish Kerry had won but that has nothing to do with my assertion that he could have won. I never mentioned who I want to run in 2008, yet I will tell you now that it is certainly not Kerry (an assumption of yours that as far as I can tell was based on thin air).



:lol:

For a moment I thought you said pet chunk - the guy argues so similarly to good ol' chunk that I wouldn't be surprised if they shared the same IP address...[/QUOTE]

Wow, once again, arguing against someone who lacks basic reasoning skills proves to be an exercise in futility.

You said Kerry "almost won." I said he didn't (while admittedly using the hyperbole of "crushed"). Nothing too controversial. No animosity. And now you are freaking out and hurling accusations. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, except maybe in the wiring of your brain. Now unbunch your panties and carry on.
 
[quote name='jmfell']It's not so much that Kerry was such a strong opponent, it's that people really disliked Bush.

In 2000 Bush basically ran on "I'm not Clinton" and it worked with a lot of the problem being Al Gore wasn't that strong of a candidate. In 2004 the Democrats tried to do the same thing by running Kerry as "I'm not Bush". Except the problem was in 2000 Bush had a strong name tie to him. He had most of buisness behind and was generally a fairly strong candidate (Still would have gotten his ass kicked by Clinton of course). In terms of actual substance of their campaigns, Kerry and Bush were a bit lopsided to Kerry's credit; however most in this country don't pay attenion to things like that. If Kerry would have presented more actual ideas for what to do and not general desires, we'd most likley be in a better position today than we are.[/QUOTE]

Gore wasn't exactly a weak opponent, it's widely held that his campaign was just abysmal while bush's was very well done.

You said Kerry "almost won." I said he didn't (while admittedly using the hyperbole of "crushed"). Nothing too controversial. No animosity. And now you are freaking out and hurling accusations. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, except maybe in the wiring of your brain. Now unbunch your panties and carry on.
Click to expand...

Stop being a hypocrite. When you start hurling insults, others will start throwing them back.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Stop being a hypocrite. When you start hurling insults, others will start throwing them back.[/QUOTE]

Check the record. I responded when attacked.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Check the record. I responded when attacked.[/QUOTE]

It seems to have started with the panties comment and then progressively got worse.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Gore wasn't exactly a weak opponent, it's widely held that his campaign was just abysmal while bush's was very well done.[/QUOTE]

This is very true, as much as I do not like what Karl Rove stands for, I must agree that his tactics are very effective. If you look at Bush's campaigns (dating back to Bush's run for governor) you see a history of shady fly-by-night "swift boat" type political advocates attacking any political foes via character assassination, and a very effective marshalling of the religious right voting block.

sgs - you seem to have a panty bunching fetish, is this phrase hot-keyed on your computer? OK sleepyking, I'm through with this chump - he's all yours. :D
 
[quote name='camoor']sgs - you seem to have a panty bunching fetish, is this phrase hot-keyed on your computer? OK sleepyking, I'm through with this chump - he's all yours. :D[/QUOTE]

It is not hot-keyed on my computer, but for some strange reason it just comes out whenever I read your posts. Oh, and Sleepkyng can't hang with me. Of course, that didn't stop you...
 
[quote name='Sleepkyng']sorry guys, I know my chump's all outta control, it's all those damn sticks i've been stickin in his ass...[/QUOTE]

Please spare us your fantasies.

We all know you have problems. No need to further embarrass yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top