An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Things Get Interesting For Mr. Karl Rove
With the House Judiciary Committee voting 20-14 to hold Karl Rove in contempt, the question is how much longer George Bush’s former consigliere will be given free rein in print and on tevee with his legal woes mounting.
The easy answer is that while any self-respecting media outlet would politely tell Rove that he might want to consider a wee vacation from bloviating because he considers himself to be above the law, they have no respect for anything except their bottom line and not pissing off right-of-center Republicans.
In any event, the time may be fast approaching where Rove can no longer blow off subpoenas and such and may require some good old presidential intervention a la Scooter Libby.
More here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “Things Get Interesting For Mr. Karl Rove”
I was wondering that myself, when I saw Mr. Rove discussing the election on Fox News. Will the prosecutors on the case go the way of David Iglesias and John McKay? Will Mukasey act as the lapdog Gonzales did for Bush? The most interesting aspect of this case is that this is alleged misbehavior that doesn't come under the “Executive Privilege” category.
This is just wacky.
Why should Rove being under attack by Democrats in the House block him from writing on the election?
Hmmm…there was also a principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Shaun…desperate to stop Rove from speaking at all costs…says it doesn't stinking matter that Rove's right to continue speaking is backed by the Constitution.
The Democrats in Congress have spoken. When Pelosi says so, conservatives must immediately stop speaking or writing about anything.
To the extent that Karl Rove is responsible for greatly lowering the level of discourse (to put it mildly) and for increasing division among the electorate, then I think he deserves precious little sympathy from any accounting headed his way. It's a shame John McCain has decided to adopt Rovian tactics in his campaign. Who ultimately benefits from a campaign based on lies and mischaracterizations? Not America, and not even the GOP in the long run.
My advice to Rove is to go testify and take the 5th on every question.
Its a witch hunt and they want him to tell a lie so they can nab him for lieing under oath or farting in the mens room or whatever to appease the insane Bush Haters who project their parties ineptness for losing two elections on Rove.
Neocon: “…insane Bush Haters”.
Every time you make a comment like that you lower your credibility among non-kool-aid drinkers. I think it's fair by now to assume you don't care about said credibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blOGsMq-XYU
Harry Shearer on Rove.
And now a federal judge has ruled that former Presidential aides are not immune to being subpoenaed by Congress. So imagine Karl and friends having to sit in front of a Congressional panel and dodge answering questions some other way…if the Republicans don't keep it tied up in appeals until after January. But you know, just to force some transparency even after then it shouldn't be allowed to drop.
“Shaun…desperate to stop Rove from speaking at all costs”
But then Shaun would have less to bloviate and bash Rove about, as well as Bush and McCain. That's counter-productive unless Shaun wants his own vacation.
I think that qualifies as a vote for keeping people in the dark.
Every time you make a comment like that you lower your credibility among non-kool-aid drinkers. I think it's fair by now to assume you don't care about said credibility.
And everytime I make a statement like that I am greeted with your kinds of rebuttals. Their is a mirror in your home too. Go look in it and tell me the far left is not BUSH HATERS and by projection they have come to hate Rove to the point that everything evil in politics now is called ROVIAN.
I have to laugh when I hear far lefties like you telling me I have no credibility. The only reason that is so is because I am in a pool of Bush Hating, Rovian obsessed Deniers.
Thank you though. My -80 disqus rating proves what I have said before. The majority of commenters here are not only left but very far left and Joe has a system of numbers to prove it.
Just look at those who appear to defend Bush or be conservative here and look at their numbers. all in the huge negatives.
Those who spew Bush hatred are all in the postitives as you all frantically click on approve or disapprove as your politics permits.
I like Lemonaide though. But thank you for the kool aid offer.
Neocon
Its a witch hunt? Why do you think he won't testify under oath? Because there's enough other testimony from other witnesses to pin a perjury and obstruction rap on him— the one he barely escaped in the Plame case. Which I'm sure you also think was a witch hunt, LOL.
Rove's actions make it seem like Rove has something to hide. Just by his, and others, actions I don't think it's any more of a “witch hunt” as that little issue in 1998 was.
Neocon there are many Bush/Cheney/Rove haters — because of the damage they have done to this country—- and by the way, they are not just among the far left. There are many valid reasons for this phenomena— the tanking economy, the politicized justice dept, the looming deficit, an unnecessary war costing Americans 12 billion per month, widespread corruption with defense contractors used by the Pentagon, stalling and denial tactics on global warming, too-cozy relationship with BIg Oil, Big Tobacco, etc etc etc.
Why do you think he won't testify under oath? Because there's enough other testimony from other witnesses to pin a perjury and obstruction rap on him— the one he barely escaped in the Plame case.
Chairman Conyers to Rove: Testimony is Necessary
As we have made clear, Mr. Rove can decline to answer specific questions based on privilege or other grounds, which are most appropriately addressed on a question-by -question basis, not by a refusal to appear altogether.
So if he can appear but take the 5th and not testify because we all know that they are going to try and pin as you say a perjury charge on him……….why on earth would he be willing to answer if the committee has said he can refuse to answer?
This is why I made the comment that I did. I wished that you people would understand the full facts before just jumping down my throat when I make a comment. I usually have researched something and have a fair idea as to why Im going to say what I say.
However the fact that I was attacked for saying something that appeared to be in defense of Rove proves the Bush hating, Rovian mentality exists here at TMV in the commenters section.
Neocon: “I am in a pool of Bush Hating, Rovian obsessed Deniers.”
You don't paint a very flattering picture of either yourself or the people you share this venue with. I don't care what your personal politics are, heck, a couple of my very best friends are far, far to the right of me (and since I'm relatively moderate, you can get an idea of just how far to the right that might be), but when you (and others who employ similar chronic anti-liberal rhetoric) feel the need to deliberately mischaracterize (and in so doing insult) those who you don't happen to agree with, then you truly DO lose credibility among many reasonable people. As for your “disqus rating”, that means nothing to me since I neither use nor pay attention to them.
Every time you make a comment like that you lower your credibility among non-kool-aid drinkers.
If you read about politics at all you will have heard the term “Kool-Aid Drinker”. If you have any familiarity with the story of Jim Jones and his Jonestown Kool-Aid mass suicide you understand the implication. It refers to people who insert a firewall between themselves and reasoned critical thought, and subscribe to a pattern of belief regardless, even, of mounting and verifiable contrary evidence. Most of these people aren’t geniuses.
When you accuse someone of something you should be very sure what you are starting Jspencer. The name slinging began with you because you disagreed with my post. I simply responded to your name slinging by suggesting that I was in a pool of Bush haters.
I have been labelled this here many times. Frankly I have been loathe to respond to it. In the last few days I have responded to being called names and my disqus went from -37 to -85 and climbing. And actually I didnt pay any attention to it till about a week ago I started clicking on it for fun with every poster. My mind is analytical that way.
Okey dokey then, it's now clear we both understand the history, past and present, and various versions of the meaning of “kool-aid”. Frankly my use of the expression is rare, but it seemed particularly appropos recently when confronted by attitudes seeminly incapable or unwilling to deviate from a chosen script. Just a note: it's modern usage, among political junkies, was far more common among folks more closely aligned with your own sentiments, and for quite awhile was a favorite expression of Bill O'Reilly – maybe it still is. In any case, if you're convinced you are untainted and objective then you needn't worry eh?
On another point: I've noticed a general theme among people who post thoughts and opinions very similar to your own and that is an insistence on using the degree loyalty or criticizm of GWB as a gauge to determine ideology or even psychology. I reject that concept. He and his administration represent such a departure from normal standards (even among traditional republicans of old) that if you are going to judge someone on that basis, then you had better be prepared to accept some rather inaccurate and unuseful data. Best to find another yardstick if you want to really know what's going on inside peoples heads.
Once again, with regard to your concerns about disqus ratings: I don't pay any attention to disqus ratings, don't use them, don't rate others, have never rated yours, so any discussion in that vein doesn't concern me. If you want to deconstruct the phenomenon and figure out what (if anything) it means, then good luck to you.
I mean the anger about Bush is so intense that its even coined a new word that will probably be with us for decades. Rovian.
My question is why would anyone want to be surrounded by yes men? Why would you or anyone want to come here and have discussion when your all saying the same thing?
When you guys bring up a valid point, I go searching the internet looking for information to support what your saying. I could easily go to a site that is more in line with what I believe but then I would just be saying right, uh huh and nodding my head in agreement. I don't find that very appealing. Or particulary informative. I know what I believe. I want to hear what you believe. Believe it or not.
I would rather someone challenge me to challenge my thought processes then to just say well they say it so it must be true.
Why cant we drill for oil. The lefts response is “well we just cant.” My response is after spending 40 years on rigs I know thats BS.
Why wont oil drop with the threat of drilling…………..the left………well it just wont……My reply is Ive been funded by small cap investors who make their money buying and selling oil futures and I know what it takes to change the dynamics of the market………A FIND. These guys are burning up the phones daily scouring the oil drillers to see if anyone is close to finding oil or gas. If they are sell short. If not go long. Several finds, even if only in the millions of BBLS would significantly impact the price of oil as its all about future traders.
As for disqus, It does not concern me either other then I find it an interesting barometer of this site, since the discussions and ratings of each poster is almost exclusively reflects this site. I use it to guage direction of the commenters. I only used it to point out that the barometer points to a very liberal bias based upon ratings of the individual commenters and their typical bias.