I think if Rove was the evil selling-soul-to-satan master mind that the left seems to collectively think he is then the president would have won by more than a 1 state margine each time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, a lawmaker believes that Rove arranged the scandal to swing the election, admits he doesn't have enough proof to make an accusation, and suggests that we should investigate -- while being realistic enough to admit that such an investigation is highly unlikely.
Why is this news? Are lawmakers no longer allowed to voice opinions? I don't think this even counts as slander.
-------
"I think if Rove was the evil selling-soul-to-satan master mind that the left seems to collectively think he is then the president would have won by more than a 1 state margine each time."
I think perhaps you don't realize that the Left thinks Bush should have lost by, like, forty states, and consequently the ability to win by a single state demonstrates soul-selling mastermindedness.
[ February 24, 2005, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Hinchey said Wednesday he never accused Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, of being behind the bogus documents and has no proof of that. But he believes it nonetheless.
''My suspicion and my theory is that it's likely to be the White House political operation headed up by Karl Rove,'' Hinchey said. ''The proof is circumstantial.''
There is no proof but he belives it nonetheless? While I agree lawmakers should be allowed to voice their opinions, I don't know if I would vote for a guy who likes to form his beliefs before he sees substantial evidence.
Hinchey is either a moron or a genius. Rove is not a person you want to mess with. If you make a go at him, you better kill him with the first shot because I doubt you will get a second. It is possible that Hinchey has some hard evidence but he is only sitting on it for now to increase the dramatic effect when that evidence is released. In that (unlikely) case, Hinchey would be a genius.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
It’s reckless, immoral, and irresponsible. This pure speculation is meant to try and hurt the administration. It would be one thing for some joe on the street or some reporter to say something like this. But this is an elected public official. Asking for an investigation into something that he has zero proof on isn’t proper. It’s shameful. I hope his constitutes are embarrassed enough by him and take care of it in 2006.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tom, on the other hand the right thinks both sKerry and Algore should have lost by 50 states and the district of columbia. That doesn't mean the right thinks there is some diabolical kingpin behind the left's near success in the past two elections.
In reality, though, barring someone of exceptional charisma (ie: Reagan and Clinton) each side is going to have a hard time taking the other sides core states. The south and mountain states will always be red. California and the NE will always be blue. The upper midwest and rust belt will be up for grabs... at least until population trends change.
So still.. a one state victory is not evidence of evilmastermindedness.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:''The fact is, the Congress, especially the House of Representatives, is a lap dog for the administration,'' Hinchey said. ''Under the present leadership, there is no possibility whatsoever that something like this will be investigated the way it should be.''
Luckily, Dan Rather will have all the time in the world to investigate this matter.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'd wager that a lot of investigations are made without concrete evidence. That's why we have investigations. To get evidence.
I also doubt such an investigation would get very far. If Rove is Machiavellian enough to do this, he's certainly smart enough not to pay by check.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Hinchey:[long rant] Audience Member: Do you have any evidence for that?
Congressman Hinchey: Yes I do. Once they did that —
Audience: [Murmuring]
Congressman Hinchey: ...once they did that, then it undermined everything else about Bush’s draft dodging. Once they were able to say, ‘This is false! These papers are not accurate, they’re, they’re, they’re false, they’ve been falsified.’ That had the effect of taking the whole issue away.
Audience Member: So you have evidence that the papers came from the Bush administration?
Congressman Hinchey: No. I — that’s my belief.
from the link. So first he says he has evidence, then when pressed he admits it's all fantasy? What a jerk. He's giving the left a bad name. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
adam: I don't think mccain has the popularity people on this board think he does. I wouldn't vote for him. In fact, I would concider voting for Bill Clinton before I would vote for him.
If Mccain wins the nomination in 2008, depending on how horrible the democrat nomination is, I might sit it out.
That being said, I'm not 100% I know his stand on all the issues but from what I gather he's not particularly fiscally conservative and he IS particularly socially conservative. That makes him someone I don't wish to vote for. (Yes, W is the same way but both sKerry and Algore were so awful...)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Whenever conservatives reach across the aisle they tend to get their hand bit.
Look at all the social programs Bush has put out there and the left hates him more than ever. Look at Bush Sr going along with the left to break his No New Taxes pledge, signing the Americans with Disabilities act and the Clean Air act and what did that get him?
Mccain is popular with the left because he frequently criticizes Bush. The day Mccain got the nomination their chumminess would dry up in a heartbeat.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But, doesn't the left really hate Bush because he has and is planning to cut a lot of social programs?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hinchey may be leftist, I don't know, or he may just be a democratic partisan, who is loyal to his party (thus disliking the Bush administration) but actually votes moderately. Lumping him in with "the Left" solely because he criticizes the administration (which in this case is likely stupid on his part) is a gross over-simplification that I would like to see ended, unless you don't actually care about constructive discourse.
It's a beautiful set-up. First you make "the Left" a pejorative, and then you lump anyone that matches just one of its traits (perhaps not even for the same reason) into that pejorative group.
-Bok
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
Really it doesn't matter whether Rove was "behind" Rathergate or not. The main sin of Rathergate was that CBS News did a lousy job of verifying their sources. Rove had nothing to do with that. So even if he somehow instigated it, it was CBS News' own inactions that lead to the scandal.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
What AndrewR said...
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: I don't think mccain has the popularity people on this board think he does.
Talking to other Republicans I have found this to be very true. He's considered too much of a something although no one is able to agree on exactly what that something is. Some say he's too much of a maverick, too much of a moderate, too much a lot of things. The point is, no matter how popular McCain is with the Dems, he won't win the nomination because conservatives won't vote for him, not because Karl Rove says so.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
AndrewR -- he wouldn't be responsible for that particular scandal, no, but if it turned out he instigated it, he'd certainly be the source of a whole new scandal , and rightly so.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Don' need Rove to be plantin' nothin' these days: his tactics are now so well publicized that they've become standard practice for neo"consertive"s everywhere.
[ February 24, 2005, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Whenever conservatives reach across the aisle they tend to get their hand bit.
Not at all. Whenever politicians strive to look like they're reaching across the aisle when they're really doing the opposite, they tend to get their hand bit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: It’s reckless, immoral, and irresponsible. This pure speculation is meant to try and hurt the administration. It would be one thing for some joe on the street or some reporter to say something like this. But this is an elected public official. Asking for an investigation into something that he has zero proof on isn’t proper.
That's rich coming from someone who supports the party that spent millions of tax payer dollars investigating the Clintons, which resulted in nothing but wasted money. That was reckless and immoral, and I think republicans should be ashamed to even DARE to call anyone else's investigation reckless, immoral, improper and especially irresponsible.
It boggles the mind.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Whenever conservatives reach across the aisle they tend to get their hand bit.
That's because whenever they reach across the aisle it's to ram right wing legislation down the left's collective mouth. I'd bite them too. Bush and the Right don't know how to compromise, they only know how to spend money and cut social programs, and give tax breaks to the rich.
[ February 24, 2005, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
My first reaction was to think that this was pretty dumb, but after giving a half second more thought, I could see it as ptentially being kind of clever. If Congressman Hinchey isn't actually aiming at the Rathergate thing and this actually becomes a thing, I think he'll have achieved his goal. It's possible that the Democrats are learning sneaky manipulation.
I'm not sure if that's something to be happy about.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
It is not.
The current political strategy seems to be: If you throw enough muck out there, people will eventually stop trying to make informed decisions and cast their votes based on their preexisting prejudices.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Not quite what I was thinking. I'm hesitant to spell it out because I'd be interested to see if other people might see it independently. But I will anyway.
If I'm looking to hurt the Bush administration, I'd be trying to get the underhanded media manipulation stories out there. Making an accusation like that might work because, with it's secret agent man conspiricy stuff, it's a lot more sexy. Plus it's a pretty baseless attack, so it may spark a lot of conservative-type people to backlash. And everytime the conservative outlets come out against this story, they're inviting comments like "Well, it's not like the Bush team is above screwing around with the media. Just consider these stories...."
It's possible the Rove-Rathergate thing is being offered up as a Maguffin, with the end goal of drawing more attention to the other more substantial but less sexy stories.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Ah I see what you mean.
But is it good strategy to surrender your credibility for the sake of drawing attention to your opponent's faults?
Dem pundit: "The Whitehouse is clearly trying to manipulate the media!"
Rep pundit: "The media and the Democrats have a conspiracy against President Bush. Look at Hinchey and Rather! Baseless accusations."
Dem pundit: "But there's solid evidence of the other stuff..."
Rep pundit: "And we're suppose to take your word for it?"
Dem pundit: "Bush lied about the war for petesake."
Rep pundit: "Clinton lied about Monica, under oath, Kerry's war record is questionable. What's your point?"
Audience: "I'm so sick of this. I wonder if Gilmore Girls is on right now."
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Obviously it was a tiny, right-wing conspiracy.
----
I did not vote for Bush, but I have to admit that a sneaking part of me would admire Rove if he managed, without leaving a trace, to get Rather to surrender his credibility so thoroughly. It's like watching a Kung Fu master at work. Hate the broken noses, but what a show.
Unfortunately, incomptetance is a more likely explanation than conspiracy.
[ February 25, 2005, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Karl Rove is a scary scary man...
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
All I can say is that once upon a time, it looked like a bungled break in at the Watergate hotel, nothing worth really investigating...
I mean hey, they didn't even really steal anything, right?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)