Another Moonbat myth, that goes along the lines of, "We Hate Bush, But We Don't Know Why". Karl Rove is without a doubt, one of the most politically astute, likable fellows that I have had the pleasure of watching on television. Prior to his "gig" on Fox News, I knew relatively little about him, and what little I did know, I had formed that opininon based on mistruths and negative press I had read in mainstream media.
The truth is, that Rove has been charged with no crime, despite being placed under a microscope by the mainstream media, the Congress, the United States Attorneys Office, and Moonbats in general. Your comments Biff, once again demonstrate that the far left is so vicious, so hateful, so radical, so out of step with America, that you cannot see the forest for the trees, and really don't have a good handle on rational thinking or an open mind when it comes to government, politics, and world affairs. On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Biff <[email protected]> wrote: > > A criminal with the name of Turdblossom doesn't have a whole lot of > latitude to discuss who is and who is not a petulant teenager. When is > this reprobate going to testify anyways? > > On Mar 12, 9:20 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > The White House Misfires on Limbaugh By KARL ROVE > > March 12, 2009 > > > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123682426946303905.html > > > > Presidents throughout history have kept lists of political foes. But the > > Obama White House is the first I am aware of to pick targets based on > polls. > > Even Richard Nixon didn't focus-group his enemies list. > > > > Team Obama -- aided by Clintonistas Paul Begala, James Carville and > Stanley > > Greenberg -- decided to attack Rush Limbaugh after poring over opinion > > research. White House senior adviser David Axelrod explicitly authorized > the > > assault. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel assigned a White House official to > > coordinate the push. And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gleefully punched > the > > launch button at his podium, suckering the White House press corps into > > dropping what they were doing to get Mr. Limbaugh. > > > > Was it smart politics and good policy? No. For one thing, it gave the lie > to > > Barack Obama's talk about ending "the political strategy that's been all > > about division" and "the score-keeping and the name-calling." The West > Wing > > looked populated by petulant teenagers intent on taking down a popular > > rival. Such talk also shortens the president's honeymoon by making him > look > > like a street-fighting Chicago pol instead of an inspirational, unifying > > figure. The upward spike in ratings for Rush and other conservative radio > > commentators shows how the White House's attempt at a smackdown instead > > energized the opposition. > > > > Did it do any good with voters not strongly tied to either party? I > suspect > > not. With stock markets down, unemployment growing, banks tottering, > > consumers anxious, business leaders nervous, and the economy shrinking, > the > > Obama administration's attacks on a radio talk show host made it seem > > concerned with the trivial. > > > > Why did the White House do it? It was a diversionary tactic. Clues might > be > > found in the revelation that senior White House staff meet for two hours > > each Wednesday evening to digest their latest polling and focus-group > > research. I would bet a steak dinner at Morton's in Chicago these > Wednesday > > Night Meetings discussed growing public opposition to spending, omnibus > > pork, more bailout money for banks and car companies, and new taxes on > > energy, work and capital. > > > > What better way to divert public attention from these more consequential > if > > problematic issues than to start a fight with a celebrity conservative? > > Cable TV, newspapers and newsweeklies would find the conflict > irresistible. > > Something has to be set aside to provide more space and time to the War > on > > Rush; why not the bad economic news? > > > > Here's the problem: Misdirection never lasts long. Team Obama can at best > > only temporarily distract the public; within days, attention will return > to > > issues that clearly should worry the White House. > > > > Not even Team Obama can forestall unpleasant reality. And among those > > America now faces is Mr. Obama adding $3.2 trillion to the national debt > in > > his first 20 months and 11 days in office, eclipsing the $2.9 trillion > added > > during the Bush presidency's entire eight years. > > > > Another reality is that Mr. Obama's fiscal house is built on gimmicks. > For > > example, it assumes the cost of the surge in Iraq will extend for a > decade. > > This brazenly dishonest trick was done to create phony savings down the > > line. > > > > Mr. Obama's budget downplays some programs' true cost. For example, his > > vaunted new college access program is funded for five years and then > > disappears (on paper); the children's health insurance program drops (on > > paper) from $12.4 billion in 2013 to $700 million the next year. Neither > > will happen; the costs of both will be much higher and so will the > deficits. > > > > Mr. Obama's budget also assumes the economy declines 41% less this year > and > > grows 52% more next year and 38% more the year after than is estimated by > > the Blue Chip consensus (a collection of estimates by leading economists > > traditionally used by federal budget crunchers). If Mr. Obama used the > > consensus forecasts for growth rather than his own rosy scenarios, his > > budget would be $758 billion more in the red over the next five years. > > > > Then there's discretionary domestic spending, which grows over the next > two > > years by $238 billion, the fastest increase ever recorded. Mr. Obama > pledges > > it will then be cut in real terms for the next nine years. That's simply > not > > credible. > > > > Then there's his omnibus spending bill to fund the government for the > next > > six months, laden with 8,500 earmarks and tens of billions in additional > > spending above the current budget. What happened to pledges for earmark > > reform and making "meaningful cuts?" > > > > In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides > > decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg. This is a political luxury the > country > > cannot afford, and which Mr. Obama would be wise to forbid. Or did he not > > mean it when he ran promising to "turn the page" on the "old" politics? > > > > *Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to > > President George W. Bush.* > > > > *Please add your comments to the* Opinion Journal > > forum<http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=5441> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
