Rove is leaving Bush

[ilovefreeway]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/rove_resigning

The question then becomes: does he get the top job on one of the campaigns or has he become, for lack of a better word, "tainted"?  In the general moderates may run from a candidate who has Rove on his team. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/rove_resigning

The question then becomes: does he get the top job on one of the campaigns or has he become, for lack of a better word, "tainted"?  In the general moderates may run from a candidate who has Rove on his team. 

Why, they didn't run from a campaign run by Paul Begala and James Carville?


According to Tony Snow, he's not going to get involved in any of the 2008 campaigns for whatever that's worth.

[Pakuni]

Why, they didn't run from a campaign run by Paul Begala and James Carville?

Chico's ... are you a tad bit obsessed with me?

Your pal,

Bill
 

[mviale]

Because Bill Clinton left office with highest approval rating of any Post War President and W will have the lowest.  In the end, republican government left another mess for a democrat to clean up.

Hoover - cleaned up by FDR
Reagan-Bush - cleaned up by Clinton
GWB - who will clean it up?

[Pakuni]

Because Bill Clinton left office with highest approval rating of any Post War President and W will have the lowest.  In the end, republican government left another mess for a democrat to clean up.

Hoover - cleaned up by FDR
Reagan-Bush - cleaned up by Clinton
GWB - who will clean it up?

Buchanan - cleaned up by Lincoln
Carter - cleaned up by Reagan

We can play that game all day, if you like.

And really, if you think Clinton cleaned up for anybody I have some land in South Florida you may be interested in acquiring (not to mention a bridge with lovely views of Manhattan).

Clinton got lucky. Twice.
First, he got a Republican-controlled Congress that prevented him from acting on his worst instincts (i.e. complete socialization of health care) and forced a hands-off approach on the economy, leaving it in the very capable hands of Alan Greenspan.
That led to the second piece of luck, the technology boom which begat the stock-market boom which begat the housing boom. Mr. Clinton had very little to with any of that, except for the fact he was forced to leave it alone.

On the other hand, perhaps credit should go to Al Gore. After all, he did invent the Internet.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Because Bill Clinton left office with highest approval rating of any Post War President and W will have the lowest.  In the end, republican government left another mess for a democrat to clean up.

Hoover - cleaned up by FDR
Reagan-Bush - cleaned up by Clinton
GWB - who will clean it up?

Mviale, when facts come into play in one of your posts, let me know.  Send an alert or something.

Truman left office with worse ratings.  So did Nixon.  So did Carter.  All three were postwar last time I checked.

Clinton's approval ratings...great....in two elections more than half the country both times voted for someone else.

As for the "republican government", last I checked Reagan worked with a Democrat Congress.  Carter left the biggest mess in 50+ years.  Bush I worked with a Democrat congress.

Again, some truthiness would be great on your part...let me know when you're ready to start.

I feel like Mike Schmidt on steroids and you're Robin Roberts grooving one down the middle again.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Why, they didn't run from a campaign run by Paul Begala and James Carville?

Chico's ... are you a tad bit obsessed with me?

Your pal,

Bill
 

Thanks Bill   


My point was simply that most people don't know who these people (Rove, Carville, Atwater, Begala) are...especially the average Joe.  I doubt it would have any impact at all.

[mviale]

I know you have to defend W and the neocons as you have bought their lies this long and you would look foolish to admit fault.  It must be tough.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I know you have to defend W and the neocons as you have bought their lies this long and you would look foolish to admit fault.  It must be tough.

Wow.  Just wow.  The guy states that Bush will have the lowest approval ratings in the postwar era and is proven wrong (if numbers hold)...3 times over (Nixon, Carter, Truman...two Democrats I might add).  And then you come up with this statement above.  Wow.  I want to live in your world Lee Harvey!

Really, it's ok to admit you were wrong....you know, the same thing you libs scream about Bush that he never admits a mistake.  You're being very "Bush like"...better go take a shower to get that off of you.   

What were those "lies" again....I keep asking and you never give me one.  All you say is that Leaky Leahy and the others will eventually come to the bottom of all of these lies.  Well...what are they?

[77ncaachamps]

At least Rove had an "exit strategy"!!! 

[ChicosBailBonds]

At least Rove had an "exit strategy"!!! 

So does Bush...win!  It makes it harder when you have leaders like Harry Reid saying the surge has failed before it even began.  Fighting two enemies makes it that much tougher.

[77ncaachamps]

At least Rove had an "exit strategy"!!! 

So does Bush...win!  It makes it harder when you have leaders like Harry Reid saying the surge has failed before it even began.  Fighting two enemies makes it that much tougher.

Unfortunately, it seems that the public and disgruntled soldiers and families are beginning to become a formidable "third front", so to speak. Extended tours in Iraq, "promises" of going home...Who wants to enlist? I guess there are still some who do.

Not to be a d*ck, but remind me again...why are we there?

[ilovefreeway]

Why, they didn't run from a campaign run by Paul Begala and James Carville?

Chico's ... are you a tad bit obsessed with me?

Your pal,

Bill
 

Thanks Bill   


My point was simply that most people don't know who these people (Rove, Carville, Atwater, Begala) are...especially the average Joe.  I doubt it would have any impact at all.

I disagree with that last point as it pertains to Rove, and that is why I wonder if he's tainted.  Rove's name has been in the media, and always in a negitive, much more then anyone else in his position then I can remember.

[Murffieus]

Sure the liberal national media tried to destroy him----but didn't succeed. Rove won----leaves on top as a huge winner-----the last congressional elction notwithstanding!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well that part is true Love, his name has been in the media in a negative light nearly 100% of the time.

I'm scratching my head wondering why that would be the case.   

[ilovefreeway]

Sure the liberal national media tried to destroy him----but didn't succeed. Rove won----leaves on top as a huge winner-----the last congressional elction notwithstanding!

This is the crap I cannot stand anymore in American political debate.  I bring up a topic that I thought might be nonpartisan and might and everyone brings out the same old crap just applied to a different topic.  Clinton did it too!  Bush got us into the war! Its the fault of the Dem's in Congress! DAMN LIBERAL NATIONAL MEDIA!!!!!!

At least Chicos attempted to answer the question I asked, and that is: Is Rove too "tainted" by scandals such as the leak and the US attorney terminations (regardless of who tainted him Murf) to be a major player in the upcoming elections?

[77ncaachamps]

Sure the liberal national media tried to destroy him----but didn't succeed. Rove won----leaves on top as a huge winner-----the last congressional elction notwithstanding!

This is the crap I cannot stand anymore in American political debate.  I bring up a topic that I thought might be nonpartisan and might and everyone brings out the same old crap just applied to a different topic.  Clinton did it too!  Bush got us into the war! Its the fault of the Dem's in Congress! DAMN LIBERAL NATIONAL MEDIA!!!!!!

At least Chicos attempted to answer the question I asked, and that is: Is Rove too "tainted" by scandals such as the leak and the US attorney terminations (regardless of who tainted him Murf) to be a major player in the upcoming elections?

I think the "biggest taint" of them all is Bush.

The political climate is so fickle that any connection to Bush brings negative attention. Inevitably, everything Rove touches smacks of Bush...and I think he's separating himself from the President for that matter.

[mviale]

Remember W is the Uniter - not the divider.  My god -Rove and Bush had the nation altogether on 9/12 and they managed to divide us to stay in power. They had choices and made them.  Leaving on top is the biggest overstatement with republicans struggling to be relevant and devoid of leadership.

[Phi Iota Gamma 84]

Because Bill Clinton left office with highest approval rating of any Post War President and W will have the lowest.  In the end, republican government left another mess for a democrat to clean up.

Hoover - cleaned up by FDR
Reagan-Bush - cleaned up by Clinton
GWB - who will clean it up?

I'm pretty sure Hillary cleaned up investing in future$

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sure the liberal national media tried to destroy him----but didn't succeed. Rove won----leaves on top as a huge winner-----the last congressional elction notwithstanding!

This is the crap I cannot stand anymore in American political debate.  I bring up a topic that I thought might be nonpartisan and might and everyone brings out the same old crap just applied to a different topic.  Clinton did it too!  Bush got us into the war! Its the fault of the Dem's in Congress! DAMN LIBERAL NATIONAL MEDIA!!!!!!

At least Chicos attempted to answer the question I asked, and that is: Is Rove too "tainted" by scandals such as the leak and the US attorney terminations (regardless of who tainted him Murf) to be a major player in the upcoming elections?

I think the "biggest taint" of them all is Bush.

The political climate is so fickle that any connection to Bush brings negative attention. Inevitably, everything Rove touches smacks of Bush...and I think he's separating himself from the President for that matter.

You might be right, then again Hillary has an unapproval rating of 50%....it's going to be this way for at least another 4 years in terms of "baggage" attachment to candidates.  People that hate everything about the Clintons and people that hate everything about the Bush's.  The way it is today.  So much so that Democrats are worried about the "Clinton drag" right now, especially in "red states" and "red districts" where moderate Dems have won in the past.


As for why we are there 77, I think that has been answered many times over.  You may not agree with it, many people don't, but those reasons were outlined many times over to the UN, to the US Congress and to the American people.

If I recall, there were 6 or 7 primary reasons, not all of which have come to fruition (WMD for example, though found they were not in high concentrations).  Removing Hussein, providing a democracy, etc, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Remember W is the Uniter - not the divider.  My god -Rove and Bush had the nation altogether on 9/12 and they managed to divide us to stay in power. They had choices and made them.  Leaving on top is the biggest overstatement with republicans struggling to be relevant and devoid of leadership.

Mviale, to be united you have to have two sides willing to unite...correct?

I have a question that I'd like you to answer for me, you usually don't answer...you're the Mojo of this board.  But I feel good today about this prospect so will ask you anyway.

Please tell me who the last "uniter" was on the Democrat side of the aisle...it certainly wasn't Clinton.  It certainly wasn't Carter.  Exactly who was it?

I would argue the last "uniter" across any party was Ronald Reagan and it showed in two election triumphs (I'm not talking approval polls where 1500 people are surveyed, I'm talking actual elections where 100+ million people actually vote).

Who exactly was the last uniter on the Democrat side?  FDR maybe?  JFK wasn't...he barely won the election with dead people voting in Illinois (i.e. stole the election).  Who was that uniter mviale?

[mviale]

I see the Rove thing is about a Reagan electoral map in a nutshell -  your logic is very clear

[harryp]

Can someone tell me how to post a new topic on this board?
Thanks.

[Chili]

At least Rove had an "exit strategy"!!! 

So does Bush...win! 

I asked this question a few weeks ago and no one answered it, what is winning? What really is the objective of this war?

And if you say stability I will laugh as this region has never been stable for any point in modern history.

[ChicosBailBonds]

At least Rove had an "exit strategy"!!! 

So does Bush...win! 

I asked this question a few weeks ago and no one answered it, what is winning? What really is the objective of this war?

And if you say stability I will laugh as this region has never been stable for any point in modern history.

I think people did answer it. 

By the way, "define stable"...you may laugh but I would argue there are plenty of stable states in that region, including Israel...a democratic state.  Turkey, a muslim nation that is a democracy...stable.


In my opinion winning means the Iraq freely elected government can function as a government body to do it's job of running the state for the Iraqi people.  This includes protecting them (security), enforcing laws (police), collecting revenues (taxes, oil revenues, etc), providing goods and services (education, etc).  And doing this in a fashion where US troops can have a minimal presence (which I think will be years from now).  Right now, the government can't do that there....mostly because security isn't in place.  Get the security in place and it allows a lot more flexibility to get the business at hand started and on it's way. 

I believe Bush has defined winning on his terms on several occasions.

Let's put it this way, I believe if we "re-deploy", then winning is impossible. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Can someone tell me how to post a new topic on this board?
Thanks.

In the upper right corner (a few inched down from the top) are 4 tabs....click the one that says "new topic"

[Chili]

At least Rove had an "exit strategy"!!! 

So does Bush...win! 

I asked this question a few weeks ago and no one answered it, what is winning? What really is the objective of this war?

And if you say stability I will laugh as this region has never been stable for any point in modern history.

I think people did answer it. 

No, you answered with the question of what is defeat. That is not an answer.

By the way, "define stable"...you may laugh but I would argue there are plenty of stable states in that region, including Israel...a democratic state.  Turkey, a muslim nation that is a democracy...stable.

Israel is a stable state under constant battery. If not for full pledged US support, they would be toast. We also allow them to have a nuclear program. Are we going to allow any other Middle East nation this power? Hell no.

Turkey is a fringe country and is a much a part of Europe as it is the Middle East.

In my opinion winning means the Iraq freely elected government can function as a government body to do it's job of running the state for the Iraqi people.  This includes protecting them (security), enforcing laws (police), collecting revenues (taxes, oil revenues, etc), providing goods and services (education, etc).  And doing this in a fashion where US troops can have a minimal presence (which I think will be years from now).  Right now, the government can't do that there....mostly because security isn't in place.  Get the security in place and it allows a lot more flexibility to get the business at hand started and on it's way. 

I believe Bush has defined winning on his terms on several occasions.

Let's put it this way, I believe if we "re-deploy", then winning is impossible. 

If you honestly believe a united Iraq will live in democracy within the next two decades please purchase my bridge in New York. You have tribes of people who have been at war for about 2,000 years. I doubt they will take onto democracy well when they have to take orders from a rival tribe.

And isn't this a war on terror in Iraq where we are fighting Al-Quida? Or do I have my wars mixed up?

I guess the fact the focus of this campaign has never had a clear direction could be the reason that there really is no chance for victory. If they finally get some direction with CLEAR objectives that troops know about (by the way, the two Marines and one Grunt I am friends who returned each with two tours agree that they had no idea what they were doing) what they are supposed to do, we can do something positive. But the best thing is to divide the country along tribal lines and keep them apart.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I see the Rove thing is about a Reagan electoral map in a nutshell -  your logic is very clear

Well, I was hopeful that you could actually answer a question but as has usually been the case, you are unable.  A simple request of who was the last uniter was all.  Nothing to hard.  I used Reagan as an example because people of all walks of life, Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, union, whatever voted for him....in overwhelming numbers.  That was the last uniter we had.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have no idea how long it will take for them to live in "democracy".  Hell, it took the United States technically from 1776 until the War of 1812 to fully live in democracy so I shouldn't expect anything less there.  In fact it might take longer.

Is that a reason not to try? 


I remember when people used to care about others being slaughtered.  When did this change?  Why should we turn our backs on the folks of Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq under Hussein?  Why is it that the UN is so inept that we do not do what is morally right?  It sucks being the only super power in the world, but that's the deal we have.  Yes, we have to pick our battles and can't be everywhere...we've made that perfectly clear.  The middle east, due to the enormous politicial and economic stakes it possesses for this country is a place we need to be and to assert our influence.


And to ride along your coattails...no, we absolutely shouldn't let a Middle Eastern country have a nuclear weapon.  Exactly one of the reasons why we went into Iraq in the first damn place.  Exactly why we need to have a presence next door to the nutcase that is trying to acquire one right now.  The same nutcase that again today said the world can only succeed under one monotheist religion and it is the duty of all Muslims to make sure this happens.  Do you want this guy controlling such weapons?

I sure don't, but some people in this country think "if we just talk, if we just get to know them better" we can win them over.  Hah.  Based on what?  Based on what over the last 2 millenium of extremism is this possible or even conceivable?

Iraq's messy.  Too bad.  Pulling out would be an unmitigated disaster short term and an untold world changing affair long term in my opinion.  Is it the lesser of two evils...perhaps, but I believe we MUST STAY.

[Chili]

I have no idea how long it will take for them to live in "democracy".  Hell, it took the United States technically from 1776 until the War of 1812 to fully live in democracy so I shouldn't expect anything less there.  In fact it might take longer.

Is that a reason not to try? 

Sure, I have no problem if the Iraqi people want to try. I just really hate nation building as does any self respecting true Republican. That is a very socialist idea that I cannot believe you support. I do not believe that the United States should be involved in this as an independent agent.

I remember when people used to care about others being slaughtered.  When did this change?  Why should we turn our backs on the folks of Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq under Hussein?  Why is it that the UN is so inept that we do not do what is morally right?  It sucks being the only super power in the world, but that's the deal we have.  Yes, we have to pick our battles and can't be everywhere...we've made that perfectly clear.  The middle east, due to the enormous politicial and economic stakes it possesses for this country is a place we need to be and to assert our influence.

Wow, that is freaking socialism!

And to ride along your coattails...no, we absolutely shouldn't let a Middle Eastern country have a nuclear weapon.  Exactly one of the reasons why we went into Iraq in the first damn place.  Exactly why we need to have a presence next door to the nutcase that is trying to acquire one right now.  The same nutcase that again today said the world can only succeed under one monotheist religion and it is the duty of all Muslims to make sure this happens.  Do you want this guy controlling such weapons?

No. I am just saying the reason Israel is stable is because we control what happens to them. Also, they are not a tribal State like the rest of the Middle East.

I sure don't, but some people in this country think "if we just talk, if we just get to know them better" we can win them over.  Hah.  Based on what?  Based on what over the last 2 millenium of extremism is this possible or even conceivable?

Iraq's messy.  Too bad.  Pulling out would be an unmitigated disaster short term and an untold world changing affair long term in my opinion.  Is it the lesser of two evils...perhaps, but I believe we MUST STAY.

I believe we should stay too. But it is going to be like Europe and Korea. We might as well start building permanent bases right now. As soon as we do this we will stand a chance at bringing most people home.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have no idea how long it will take for them to live in "democracy".  Hell, it took the United States technically from 1776 until the War of 1812 to fully live in democracy so I shouldn't expect anything less there.  In fact it might take longer.

Is that a reason not to try? 

Sure, I have no problem if the Iraqi people want to try. I just really hate nation building as does any self respecting true Republican. That is a very socialist idea that I cannot believe you support. I do not believe that the United States should be involved in this as an independent agent.

I remember when people used to care about others being slaughtered.  When did this change?  Why should we turn our backs on the folks of Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq under Hussein?  Why is it that the UN is so inept that we do not do what is morally right?  It sucks being the only super power in the world, but that's the deal we have.  Yes, we have to pick our battles and can't be everywhere...we've made that perfectly clear.  The middle east, due to the enormous politicial and economic stakes it possesses for this country is a place we need to be and to assert our influence.

Wow, that is freaking socialism!

And to ride along your coattails...no, we absolutely shouldn't let a Middle Eastern country have a nuclear weapon.  Exactly one of the reasons why we went into Iraq in the first damn place.  Exactly why we need to have a presence next door to the nutcase that is trying to acquire one right now.  The same nutcase that again today said the world can only succeed under one monotheist religion and it is the duty of all Muslims to make sure this happens.  Do you want this guy controlling such weapons?

No. I am just saying the reason Israel is stable is because we control what happens to them. Also, they are not a tribal State like the rest of the Middle East.

I sure don't, but some people in this country think "if we just talk, if we just get to know them better" we can win them over.  Hah.  Based on what?  Based on what over the last 2 millenium of extremism is this possible or even conceivable?

Iraq's messy.  Too bad.  Pulling out would be an unmitigated disaster short term and an untold world changing affair long term in my opinion.  Is it the lesser of two evils...perhaps, but I believe we MUST STAY.

I believe we should stay too. But it is going to be like Europe and Korea. We might as well start building permanent bases right now. As soon as we do this we will stand a chance at bringing most people home.

I hate nation building too, I think Bush does as well.  9/11 changed everything in his mind and the minds of many others.  Will it work, I have no idea.  Is it worth trying...hell yes.  Is 4 years enough time to give it a try....Gosh, we are really impatient if it is.




Socialism....sorry, but that is not the definition of socialism in any text I ever learned at MU or KU.  I don't see where that comes from in your mind.  Socialism is primarily an economic and social system (brought about by political means) that embodies the collective community supports one another internally through policies (i.e. nationalization of industry, etc).

Coming to aid of people that are slaughtered by a dictatorship or his armies is socialism?