Ignoring his flawed 2006 forecast, Wallace allowed Rove to predict GOP "gains in the Congress" in 2008
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, Karl Rove stated, "I'm confident the Republican candidates are going to have enough money to make enough damage out of this record to make gains in the Congress." Host Chris Wallace did not note Rove's incorrect prediction that Republicans would retain control of Congress in the 2006 elections or Rove's incorrect predictions about the 2000 presidential election.
On the December 2 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, former White House senior adviser Karl Rove claimed that Republicans will "make gains in the Congress" in the 2008 elections. However, host Chris Wallace did not note that Rove wrongly predicted the results of the last election, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented. Further, in a December 2 Politico.com article, staff writer Martin Kady II reported that on Fox News Sunday, Rove had "predict[ed] Republicans could make gains in Congress due to Democrats' lack of accomplishments and displeasure with their tax and war policies." Kady also did not note Rove's flawed assessment before the 2006 midterm election.
During his appearance on Fox News Sunday, Rove said to Rep. Chris Van Hollen Jr. (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "You may have more money than ... the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee [sic: National Republican Campaign Committee] today, but the RNC [Republican National Committee] has more money than the DNC [Democratic National Committee], and let's see where the individual candidates are when it really matters next September or October." He added, "I'm confident the Republican candidates are going to have enough money to make enough damage out of this record to make gains in the Congress."
But Rove also expressed confidence in Republican victories during the 2006 election. Indeed, an October 18, 2006, Washington Times article headlined "Rove foresees GOP victory" quoted Rove as saying: "I'm confident we're going to keep the Senate; I'm confident we're going to keep the House." During the October 24, 2006, edition of National Public Radio's All Things Considered, Rove told host Robert Siegel, "I'm looking at all of these Robert and adding them up. I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I'm entitled to the math." Democrats ultimately won 30 House seats and six Senate seats, thus regaining control of both chambers of Congress.
Further, during the 2000 presidential election, Rove predicted that George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, would win 320 electoral votes, according to a November 6, 2006, St. Petersburg Times article. According to a November 6, 2000, Houston Chronicle article, Rove also predicted that "Bush will get about 50 percent of the popular vote, with [Vice President Al] Gore at about 45 percent." The article went on to report that "Rove discounted the much-discussed possibility that Gore could win the Electoral College while losing the national popular vote to Bush, a scenario that has not occurred since 1888." The Chronicle quoted Rove responding, "You had a weird set of political dynamics (in 1888) that are not repeatable in modern America." In fact, the election was split, and Bush did not receive 50 percent of the popular vote or garner 320 electoral votes; Gore won 48.38 percent of the popular vote and Bush 47.87 percent, while 271 electors voted for Bush and 266 voted for Gore (one of the three electors from Washington, D.C. -- which Gore won with 171,923 votes to Bush's 18,073 -- abstained).
From the December 2 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Let me show you another set of polls, if we have -- the president's job approval is now down to 36 percent, but Congress' is even lower, as you can see there -- 26 percent. So -- and let me start with you Mr. Rove, and you can respond to this and that -- which is a bigger burden, Mr. Bush for the Republicans or the Democratic Congress for the Democrats?
ROVE: Well, the Democrat [sic] Congress will be on the ballot; President Bush won't be. And look, they've got momentum, I grant you that. They had momentum that went from very high ratings immediately after the 2000* elections to that record low number today, and it's because they have proposed big taxes, big spending, have failed to support our troops in the war, are undermining our intelligence collection efforts, have shut the Republicans out of any meaningful discussions to move the country ahead, as they had promised to do during the campaign, and have demonstrated an utter lack of fiscal responsibility by recommending $205 billion in additional spending over the next four years and two of the biggest tax increases in American history -- the repeal of the Bush tax cuts, which is over a trillion dollars in tax increases, and then a tax-reform plan from the Ways and Means Committee chairman, which is a trillion dollars in additional taxes. That's why they have gone from very high to very low. That momentum is going in the wrong way. Now, you may have more money than Democratic Congressional -- than the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee today, but the RNC has more money than the DNC, and let's see where the individual candidates are when it really matters next September or October. And I'm confident --
[crosstalk]
ROVE: I'm confident the Republican candidates are going to have enough money to make enough damage out of this record to make gains in the Congress.
From the December 2 Politico.com article:
Rove and Van Hollen, the chairman of the Democratic Congresional [sic] Campaign Committee, got feisty on "Fox News Sunday," with Rove predicting Republicans could make gains in Congress due to Democrats' lack of accomplishments and displeasure with their tax and war policies.
"They have proposed big taxes, big spending, have failed to support our troops on the war ... and have demonstrated an utter lack of fiscal responsibility," said Rove, who is out of the White House but still defending his old boss at every turn.
Van Hollen, who several times reached out and touched Rove's arm during the debate, swung back with clear polls showing Democrats had the lead in both generic presidential and congressional polls.
Asked about Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel's "mother of all tax bills" Van Hollen contended that "we will not raise taxes. We're going to give broad middle America a tax cut."
Rove simply laughed at the statement.
Rove is a paid-for liar.
His "predictions" are as credible as the ones in the supermarket tabloids.
Who would still be stupid enough to put him on TV? Oh right, Fox (har har) "news."
And who would be stupid enough to hire him to write columns? Oh right, Newsweak.
I am taking a wild guess here - FOX + Wallace + Rove = FOX Entertainment Network.
Hey, ever since I learned Rove's math, the world is a much happier place.
Justice and Truth(tm) in the USA - Fact Check:
As I was watching this interview on Fox News Sunday I was wondering how MMFA was going to find a way to complain. I mean, Wallace was asking lots of tough questions and was challenging Rove on lots of issues. This was as fair and honest an interview as could be imagined. Little did I know just how dishonest and conniving MMFA could be.
If you read the summary you would never guess that this interview on Fox News Sunday was an interview with BOTH Rove AND Van Hollen. It was a joint appearance and Hollen had EQUAL TIME to challenge anything that Rove said. The summary makes no mention of this fact. And when MMFA finally mentions Hollen it does so by stating that:
During his appearance on Fox News Sunday, Rove said to Rep. Chris Van Hollen Jr. (D-MD), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, "You may have more money than ... the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee [sic: National Republican Campaign Committee] ...
It was totally dishonest of MMFA to use these words "During his appearance..." An accurate statement would have said THEIR APPEARANCE.
Why does this matter? Because MMFA is being completely misleading. Rove didn't just say something to Van Hollen. Rove and Van Hollen had a real debate and they clashed on several issues.
How fair was the debate on Fox News? Well, look at the minor little nothing part that MMFA tries to complain about. Rove and Van Hollen made many statements and challenged and questioned each other. The fact that Wallace didn't go to one trivial issue is not a big deal.
And when MMFA give the smartass "SIC" treatment to Rove in the quote it's just more sniveling idiocy from MMFA.
You guys should really be ashamed at how dishonest, conniving and sniveling MMFA has become with this topic.
Hi, there, buddy.... If you and I appeared on a show where you had, in the past, INCORRECTLY predicted two events you were being paid mega-bucks to ENSURE that those predictions came true, and a *news* agency let you predict again, in your own words (YOUR appearance- with me sitting next to you letting you say your piece) an event without noting your mistakes, how does that make you and the *news* agency look...?
L:
Did you watch the interview? If you did could you please be honest and give me an overall evaluation of the quality of the interview -
Did Wallace challenge Rove with a lot of questions? Did Van Hollen have equal time to challenge Rove on anything he said?And please try to be honest - don't you expect partisans to predict that their side will win in the next election?If you are honest you will have to agree that the interview was fair and that MMFA has nothing to complain about.
- Justice and Truth(tm)
i did not see the interview- prolonged exposure to Fox *news* is bad for my health... MMFA is showing that a *news* agency doesn't care that a guest on the show has been WRONG about the VERY THING he should have not been WRONG about... AND what is more illuminating is Rove saying it will be just who has enough moo-lah to 'gain' in the government... MMFA made no quarrel about the interview, just the fact that someone who has been WRONG, more than once, gets time to air another prediction straight from their kiester as if what they say is gospel truth...
L:Go watch the interview. You really don't understand what happened unless you see for yourself.
After you watch the interview you can then respond to my questions.
- Justice and Truth(tm) in the USA
the interview could be flawed or not flawed... the issue is the predictor and the predictor's record- How about if you were on a show where you had been dead wrong in your predictions as to who was going to win the World Series, and you're the top odds maker/bookie in the u.s...? Would I, as a commentator, be so hunky-dorey to let you spout off again without even MENTIONING that you were WRONG in your previous predictions..?
I'm probably in the minority here JT, but I love your enthusiasm.
Don't like you setting the ground rules so much though.
You forget that Fox purports to be a news outlet, not an arm of the Republican Party. As such they are supposed to use common sense in the questioning of any guest. Common (as opposed to partisan) sense says you bring up the guy's last prediction.
You forget that Fox purports to be a news outlet
Heck, Keef Oblermanny "purports" to host a "news program" on his "Meltdown" program. And KO never interviews ANYONE who disagrees with his far left views - and barely seems to even understand something as basic as geography!
Now on Fox News Sunday they had two partisans and they let them debate a lot of issues in about 15 minutes of airtime. Rove and Van Hollen had plenty of opportunity to make their case.
IF MMFA had any sense of fairness they might have said "good job" to Wallace and Fox News Sunday. Heck, even the Media Research Center sometimes gives the liberal MSM credit for a good job once in a while!
If MMFA wanted to have any credibility they would offer some positive reviews once in a while when a news organization does a good job.
The fact that MMFA can't means that they will never have ANY credibility.
Uuummm..... hey, there- Maybe you should click on the boxes below MMFA's logo to find out why they may not highlight 'positive' news reportings... just a thought, because that's the FIRST thing I did when I first came to this site from ihatebilloreilly.com...
Here's a link to the entire segment, just so everyone can see how "fair and balanced" the interview was:
[link to www.newshounds.us]
Thanks for the link -
If you ignore the lefty ranting and just click the video links to YouTube you will see that Wallace conducted a really fair interview with both Rove and Van Hollen.
But remember, if you read the MMFA summary you would never guess that Van Hollen was even a part of the interview. The truth is that Rove was responding to tough questions from Wallace and challenges from Van Hollen.
Wallace did a good job in questioning Rove - and Wallace brought up the poll numbers showing how far ahead the Democrat Party was and the low public opinion of George Bush.
Wallace is not a hack like Keefer Oblermanny on "Meltdown" or a far-left nut like Amy Goofman on "Democracy Now!(except in Cuba and Venezuala)".
News and commentary is not really neutral because the decision to cover something is a bias of sorts. Amy Goodman covers stories that the mainstream press does not.
I do hope you occasionally listen to her even with that industrial strength ego of yours that filters out most of what you don't want to accept because it is at odds with your view of reality.
Why should we accept ANYTHING you say when you cannot spell the name of Van Hollen's party correctly?
You telling us we lack credibility is like Wile E. Coyote telling the Road Runner he's toast.
" . . . and Wallace brought up the poll numbers showing how far ahead the Democrat Party was and the low public opinion of George Bush.
Wallace is not a hack like Keefer Oblermanny on "Meltdown" or a far-left nut like Amy Goofman on "Democracy Now!(except in Cuba and Venezuala)"."
The fact all of your posts and arguments are laced with childish name-calling means YOU will never have any credibility.
Since you are so stupid you dont even know the name of the largest political party in the US, I cant believe anyone CARES what you think of the interview. What good is such a morons opinion anyway?
Heck, Keef Oblermanny "purports" to host a "news program" on his "Meltdown" program.--TJ
Fox News Sunday is broadcast in competition with the other network political interview shows
“If MMFA wanted to have any credibility they would offer some positive reviews once in a while when a news organization does a good job.
The fact that MMFA can't means that they will never have ANY credibility.”—TJ
When the ref doesn’t see a foul he doesn’t blow the whistle
When the ref doesn’t see a foul he doesn’t blow the whistle
I really want to help MMFA gain some credibility so that you guys can be taken seriously outside of the usual lefty sites. So when I offer friendly advice it's only because I care.
Now let's just say that your analogy really does not work because a ref needs to be objective and unbiased. Clearly, that is not the case with MMFA-
However, if MMFA really wanted to start trying to build up their credibility they could have said something like -
"In an otherwise fair and balanced interview, we think that Wallace made a small error by not challenging Rove when he predicted that the Republicans would do well in the next election."
The reason that a line like this might help is that anyone who actually views the interview would come away with a feeling that Wallace did a good job. There were some small and insignificant problems, but nothing really worth complaining about. If MMFA could just concede the obvious it would help.
MMFA doesnt NEED you they HAVE credibility. YOU DONT.
You come here to complain about how poor ol' Fox News can't catch a break since they're so darn fair, oh yeah, and balanced?
The last 30% of you Republics are getting desperate...how's it feel to be the minority party, all your boys retiring, resigning, or otherwise going down in flames along with W?
Justytroothy, isn't Hot Air (your link) Michelle Malkin's site? She really busted Olbermann for getting Denver on the wrong side of the Rockies.That is Big!
More hilarious is, in her post attempting to attack KO's intelligence for not knowing which side of a mountain range a city is on, she spells "imitation" with two "m"s.
You really shoud be keeping an eye on your own people.
Olberman made a mistake in geography and we're supposed to make a big deal out of it?
We have a sitting president who isn't even comfortable using his native language who before invading Iraq didn't know there were differences between Sunni and Shiite Iraqis. Were you complaining back then?
"Border relations between Canada and Mexico have never been better." (24 Sep 2001)
"I don't know why you're talking about Sweden. They're the neutral one. They don't have an army." Dec. 2002
"Wow! Brazil is big." (6th Nov 2005)
- George W. Bush
Truthy, I admit that I am stunned by the normal tone of your posts concerning this subject. So, XOF NEWS is reporting that you are finally adjusting your brain waves, as predicted here at XOF, but reading and posting on MMFA. Not seeing the interview, XOF NEWS cannot comment on the contents, but by not challenging Mr. Black Rovember on his past predictions is like interviewing Jeff Dahmer and not asking him why he ate people.
Truthy. please stick around, your healing process is going well.
Truthy, I admit that I am stunned by the normal tone of your posts concerning this subject.
I was just off to a slow start today. But don't worry... I'm still bringing truth by the case to MMfA!
I noticed in your late posts...back to your normal self although normal is a kind word for you. Thanks for the advice you give posters here. You prove why being a nit-picker is only good for the RIGHTIES of the world.
This website isn't about anything other than it says. Try to think about that and then your life will get out of the fog. To summarize. you always point out difference in what you may believe and why this site is here. Sort of like wondering why they don't have TOUCHDOWNS in BASEBALL because they have them in HOCKEY.
If you EVER do it will be the VERY first time
You mean like how you should watch a movie before you condemn it? I'm just sayin...
Equal time? On Faux News? You are either joking or sadly misinformed...Have you ever watched more than 2 minutes of
Hannity and Colmes?
There's no such thing as equal time on this network! Their idea of a liberal representative is someone they can easily steamroll or talk over! Oh, and Rove is a tool! Do you think he was a 'pitcher' or 'catcher' when Jeff Gannon spent the night in the White House? Just curious...But not that curious!
"...you were being paid mega-bucks to ENSURE that those predictions came true,..."---Mr. L
Right, what he's doing here is establishing legitimacy for another future stolen election. If the're close eneogh, he has to be able to plausibly tell the American people and the media that the Republicans really did win. He has to get the expectations reasonably high.Justice is correct…
MMFA is throwing their faithful another curve ball. Not only is MMFA being dishonest by not really disclosing the debate format and the fact that it was an extremely intense discussion hallmarked by both Rove and Van Holland talking over each other arguing both sides, but they apparently expect Mr. Rove, an admitted conservative republican, to say that since he was wrong in his hopeful prediction in 2006 he should just go ahead and predict defeat for republicans in ‘08. What a crock of liberal hooey! That’s like challenging the coach of a college football team who predicts victory for his team in next week’s game (a logical thing to do) because they lost a game to that team last year and expecting him to admit defeat right then and there.
The Liberal Playhouse – Act I – Scene I
Liberal Reporter: So coach, how do you think your team will do on Saturday?
Coach: We’ve been working hard and we’re going to play tough and I expect to win big!
Liberal Reporter: Hey wait a minute, you lost to this team last year…how dare you predict victory! You’re being dishonest!
Coach: You’re right…we’re going to lose!
<curtain>
Liberal lunacy on display here at MMFA!
This is a non-story trumped up and made funny by liberals in their whacked out, theoretical world!
"And when MMFA give the smartass "SIC" treatment to Rove in the quote it's just more sniveling idiocy from MMFA."
I love these glimpses into the inner workings (sic) of the wingnut brain. Rove gets the name of the committee he's talking about wrong, and then he intentionally gets the name of the Democratic party wrong, but correcting those errors in a transcript is "smartass," "sniveling idiocy."
Using the "(sic)" implies that it was a mistake...a slip of the tongue. When it comes to calling it the 'democrat' party, it is more than a slip. It's quite deliberate. It's like calling the "Inheritance Tax" the "Death Tax" when, in fact, it could more accurately be described as the "Trust-Fund Baby Tax". It's all about framing!
I had no trouble understanding MMFA's report of today's FOX News broadcast with Rove and Van Hollen. It was obvious to me that both were on the same programme at the same time.
JT,
Your postings make me laugh every time......
Part of what you said: "I mean, Wallace was asking lots of tough questions and was challenging Rove on lots of issues."
I could ask hard equivilent questions like this to my teenage kids and if they gave the same lame and run-a-round non-answer answers instead of the direct no nonsense answers I'd expect from them they'd be in their room with no TV until they were 18!
The big huge difference between Wallaces 'interview' (if it can be called that) with Karl Rove and that of Clinton the other month was that Rove was allowed to answer the way he did and Wallace hardly pushed him for real straight or direct answers.......
We all know how he was embarassed by Bill.
Interviews where the guest and the questioner are paid by the same side is hardly what I would call an interview!
You are telling MMFA THEY should be ashamed? You embarass yourself here daily with your stupidity and troll posts. Rove DID appear thus his appearane. So far you have never once made a cogent argument at this site. Not one. You should crib off the other kids on the shortbus because YOU dont have it.
J&T,
You do make some good points, I'll concede that much, but after what happened in 2006, I think Mr. Rove's credibility has taken a hit.
Prior to that the left demonized him and the right idolized him because it looked like he was engineering a sustainable republican majority. That's gone, and we can now all realize that he is, in fact, a mere mortal. He still should have been made to square this prediction with what went wrong in 2006, in his mind anyway.
It's a close call, but I think this is fair on MMFA's part. (Remember the audience after all!)
I think Mr. Rove's credibility has taken a hit.
Did the "s" key on your keyboard stick?
LOL - well I am just a medicore speller and and an attrocious typist, so anything's possible! :D
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I be smiling when Karl has his interview from a federal correction's facility in a jump suit! He'll explain how he got it wrong and it was somebody else at fault.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The truth is irrelevant on Faux, otherwise Rove would not be allowed on. Keep dreaming about relevance, its something you don't have and never will.
I hope the democratic president deems fox news as an advocate channel and makes them buy their air time, like QVC and TV evangalists.
i loved how rove claimed that the administration did not want the vote on authorizing millitary force held in october 2002, just before the elections. they were the ones who pushed for it then.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/01/fleischer-dispute-rove-iraq/
I think Mr. Rove has been exposed as a NON-GENIUS. His silly attempts for a come-back are simply for cash. KARL, go back underground where you can play with the weasels. You'll fit right in. Your 15 minutes/years are up, you have been outted (in a political sense only).
Yes...a "political sense"...See my Jeff Gannon question posted earlier. Come on out of that closet Karl!
Karl reminds me of the student who gets straight A's because he cheats or blackmails the instructor.
The ends always justify the means for this criminal.
Really, isn't Rove just the GOP's own version of "Baghdad Bob"?
And hey, NoJusticeNoTruthandDamnedfew Facts(c)(TM), I do see a sniveling idiot here, but it isn't MMFA.
And fox can be called Goebble's Global News.
Well this is an example of how Wallace has become a puppet of the GOP and FOX. Good thread by MM.
I watched this idiot this morning while I usually flip the channels watching the sunday talk shows. I said to myself I still do not understand why this man was not arrested for treason. I can not believe that any network would take him seriously, well of course I would expect this from FOX News. This man has no credibility what so ever, was of course wrong about 2006, Iraq, is responsible for the biggest divide in this nation since the vietnam era. When I see him I see what is wrong with America and it breaks my heart.
Jylons: My sentiments exactly. The real problem here is just how galling it is to see that tub of jello on TV pontificating about anything. This "man" (and I use that word loosely) is a lying, sniveling little weasel, and he has no credibility on any subject. His new nonsense about how the Democrats pushed the war vote is just the latest example. Even Card is now laughing at how outrageous this man's constant lies have become. But FOX will always give him a forum to spout his garbage, and always act as if his "predictions" are straight talk from a knowledgeable source, rather than more crapola from the most dishonest man in Washington. FOX's hope, of course, is that the more people hear his lies, the more people believe them and the lies become accepted as truth by enough people to make a difference. Anytime this man is given a forum it is a disservice to anyone who cares about the truth, regardless of their political affiliation.
" I'm confident the Republican candidates are going to have enough money to make enough damage out of this record to make gains in the Congress."-KR
Typical Republican answer. It's always money before people. What Rove is saying to me is that he has confidence that his Repubs can pay enough blood money to enough smear thugs to impugn the character of dems who are fighting for healthcare for all, safe consumer products, cleaner air, living wages and peace.
If he had any confidence at all he would probably be talking about the great job the right has done instead of how much he hates the left. He would talk about how well received conservative governance has been on Main St. He can't he traffics in personal destruction and this, his estimable aptitude for mud slinging, is his prime weakness. He has nothing positive to draw on from his time with the Bush Republicans and that says more about his empty heart than any lie he can concoct about the liberal/progressive agenda.
I don't agree with Karl Rove's prediction that Republicans will do well in 2008. I didn't agree with him about 2006 either. But it seems a bit trivial to me that a clear partisan such as Rove shouldn't be able to offer an "opinion" about the upcoming election without MMFA expecting the Media to mention his previous failed predictions. Is it really surprising that he said it? Does it mean anything?
"Is it really surprising that he said it? Does it mean anything?"
No. And No. - SAM I am, the Straight Answer Man ~
Thanks Bruce and Sam for commenting on the substance of this posting by MMFA. Though I might disagree in part. The Great Rove blew the midterm election prediction so badly it cost him his job and his stature among some Republicans.
He now makes the very same type of prediction (offered as opinion?) and Wallace doesn't even think his previous error warrants a mention?
No. Wallace knows better, but he also knows from whence his bread is buttered. I believe his blatant omission deserves to be reported here at MMFA.
The subject of this post is Wallace, not Rove.
I am reluctantly going to agree with JT this time.
Not because MMFA does not pat the right wing media on their little collective butts for a job well done once and a while. That should be the MSM job and they fail all too often -- so they deserve the stick.
Not because Chris Wallace is a journalist -- he is a hack.
But to challenge Rove on the last set of elections and expect him to break down on the matter like a witness on "Perry Mason". Come on. Even we have to have a little give -- that interview would have went nowhere, made for bad TV, and really offered nothing to the public debate. First, I am sure Rove expected to "win"/"steal" the elections. Otherwise, he would have abandon that sinking ship like the rat he is. Next, I expect he plans on his side "winning"/"stelaing" the 2008 elections. And to be fair from what I have heard being offered by the Democratic candidates on their platforms and the general hemming and hawing -- I don't think it is impossible, although unlikely that they could win some seats or the Presidency. Stealing well we've seen that and that is anyone's guess what moves they will make toward that option.
You can not expect Rove to predict his party's demise in public, even if his devisive political machinations and the administration he helped elected is to be directly responsible for it. Especially, while the Democrats running for President and heading Congress continue to give way and fodder to these at best dubious GOP politicians and worst criminals.
And besides Rove was truthful about one thing although indirectly:
ROVE: "I'm confident the Republican candidates are going to have enough money to make enough damage out of this record to make gains in the Congress."
Allow me to translate. What Rove meant to say, "We have no real vision for America other than the continued impoverishment of its ideals, reputation, and economic power. However, enough of the uber-rich and amoral still are on our side so that using dirty tricks and outright lies we will make the Democrats look like the incompetent bad guys we actually areand so we stand a good chance of regaining or maintaining some of our former glory. Unless there is another Congressional page or Larry Craig incident -- because no one, especially the leading Democratic operatives, are going to raise a fuss over a real issue."
There it is and why he may be right. Real issues -- Dem.s win. Bread, circuses, and dirty tricks -- GOP wins. The question is the Dem.s courage. Which I find lacking in a lot of ways in the major candidates.
Come '08 Rove could look like Nostradomus and then will we go back and correct this story? Probably not and while I doubt either will happen, they are possible given our present state of unwillingness to take on and defeat the obstacles (the chief of these being the GOP) with the opportunity we have been given. The voter's wanted a change, Dem.s gave them more of the same by not attacking important issues or allowing the GOP to use procedural tricks to make them look like fools. They should have crushed them like cockroaches once they took over. The lesson is do your job, plow your fields, and don't play with a poisonous snake while it keeps you from completing this task -- cut its head off and plow it under.
UFLEIRX, do you realize that Truthy will be soooo excited that he will have to type one-handed. Early, I actually commented on his rational posting but that didn't last long. Once you reluctantly agree, you are opening yourself up for a monumental lawsuit because you will change your mind by midnight. Just a hint.
I am reluctantly going to agree with JT this time.
UFLEIRX - You poor brave bastard! Those are dangerous words.
Justice and Truth in the USA!
I think your Intellectual Property Value may have increased with a non-repooplickan adult moving into the neighborhood.If this bubble continues to inflate, you may be able to move your intellectual property litigation out of small claims court.
JusticeTruth,
Can you explain how it happened that you were the only guy sticking up for the Right on this site IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY! I don't get it. Out of all the millions of supposed Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Medved, Miller, Hewitt, Ingraham, Fox news viewers, you TruthJustice are the only one who cared enough to do battle with the evil liberals here.
I realize there are other political websites, and it was a Sunday. But there are tens of millions of citizens in the pool of potential participants.
I could well be wrong, but my hunch is that thru some twisted logic or secret agenda you won't let on to, you really do see yourself as a patriot. If I'm right about this, I admire your interest in the welfare of the country.
And I'm not bragging about the liberal turnout either. Nor my own only occasional level of participation here.
What I fear is that people have given up on the country on a massive scale. If so, I think were doomed, as the political opportunists who don’t have the good of the country at heart will even further fill the vacuum created. .
"What I fear is that people have given up on the country on a massive scale. If so, I think were doomed, as the political opportunists who don’t have the good of the country at heart will even further fill the vacuum created."
- You're speaking for yourself here, I hope. I haven't given up on this country -yet- although I must admit I came close after Nov 2004. And I will probably be somewhat apprehensive for another 11 months. Shame we have to wait that long for another chance to sink the political opportunists in a perfect storm of genuine patriotism!
I haven't given up...but it's hard to find a reason for optimism. Our political system is thoroughly corrupted by corporate money, and our Constitutionally Protected Press Corps is whoring itself to the same moneyed interests. Our healthcare system is gradually becoming a luxury, with no workable solution in sight.
But, we live in a consumer's paradise, and I guess that's worth something.
eddy:
Here is the problem - while this site claims to want different viewpoints, they really don't. You can come to MMFA and make any (and I mean ANY) allegation about George Bush or Dick Cheney. The slightest joke about Hillary will get you banned.
Now it's not just this site - DU, KOS, FreeRep, etc. etc. - are establishing separate zones for people so that there is very little mixing. As a result I find that people nowadays simply to not understand the other side's arguments and merely talk past each other.
Another result is that we tend to give the other side terrible motives. Conservatives think that the libs want to lose the war. Libs think that conservatives want to starve children.
There is very little constructive discussion.
Now I can accept all that - but when the moderator of this topic deletes some of my great humorous stuff - well that just yanks my chain. It gives me the impression that the people who moderate these topics are kind of dumb, humorless, cretins.
- Justice and Truth(tm) in the USA - Fact Check!
"The slightest joke about Hillary will get you banned."
You took the campaign office hostage situation thread as an opportunity to make a joke about molesting interns, while your post was among many others that was eventually deleted, you're still here.
pete:
In all honesty I cannot explain why I have not been banned yet.
They must be asleep at the switch!
And this goes to my bigger point - It is damn hard to get partisans to actually be able to coexist on any forum. The only time I see left and right make an effort is at National Review Online where they have a weekly discussion with Peter Beinart and Jonah Goldberg.
Good stuff -
I dont either you are pure troll.
Now that was indeed in poor form.
JT, tell me more about the "zones" at daily KOS please. I am not seeing it.
Thanks
How can anyone think that any medium that gives any time to Karl Rove has any credibility? The man is treasonous and totally un-American -- the lowest of the low.