Karl Rove, the GOP’s master of dirty tricks, said on Fox News that John McCain had gone “one step too far” in some of his recent ads and in “sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the ‘100 percent truth’ test.” If Rove’s conscience is bothered by an attack ad, then you know it’s beyond the pale.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
94 Comments
OK, lets all stop talking about the issues.
Media has gone over completely to tabloid.
You know you’ve jumped the shark, when Rove chastises you!
You know you’ve jumped the shark, when Rove chastises you!
You know you’ve jumped the shark, when Rove chastises you!
‘puter hung up.
Mccain sleaziest campaign ever.
WOW! Dirty even by Rovian standards. That taks some real effort!
Wow! Watch the libs BELIEVE something Rowe says.
The king is dead long live the king!
Wouldn’t believed Rove was telling the truth but I’ve seen it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears. Mccains has sunk to the bottom of the barrel.
Look at the attention those ads are getting at no extra cost! Now you’re talking!
Exactly Linda. How many American voters passed Psychology 101?
The Karl Rove I have seen is a straightforward, articulate, low key nice guy that has been vilified by the left.
Karl Rove: The “WWF bad guy” of Politics. LOL
Rove, in appearance, reminds me of that fat boy band promoter, Lou I forget his name.
What, precisely, is the goal of Rove?
Rove would prefer NOT to put the cultural stuff front and center. Rove would prefer to allow the profamily groups do that, instead, on McCain’s behalf.
Moreover, the only thing that was not “100% true” in the advertising about Obama?
Obama FAILED to push comprehensive, radical, explicit sex education on kindergartners.
The legislative change that Obama supported, FAILED!
But there is NO doubt that Obama wanted to amend the law to reduce the grade level from 6th grade to KINDERGARTEN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ6vZRy62KY
Notice Obama making fun of his opponent, Alan Keyes!
By the way, there is NO verbage that says “age appropriate” in the bill that Obama supported.
That law WOULD have forced AIDs and STD “education” to KINDERGARTNERS!
Read the legislation, lazy people!
Lou Pearlman, that is who he looks like.
This advertising is only “untrue” in that Obama’s proposed changes did not pass!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLQhRiEXZs
Whoa, now that IS quite a resemblance ANTI.
Fact Check says that OBAMA was wrong, to claim that Romney had supported “sex ed for 5 year olds”:
“Sex, Sex, Sex
We thought that might keep you reading. At the debate, Obama accused Republican Mitt Romney of supporting sex education for 5-year-olds when he was running for governor of Massachusetts. Earlier, Romney had accused Obama of the same thing. But both are twisting each other’s words.”
—–
Where FACTCHECK is wrong, of course, is that FACTCHECK trusts Obama to tell us what the legislation actually said.
The truth is that Obama DID vote for, and support on the floor, legislation that would require comprehensive sex ed, including AIDs and STD education. The law in Illinois stated that such instruction was to begin in the 6th grade. Obama wanted to lower that to KINDERGARTEN.
Those are the facts.
There is NOTHING in the bill that Obama supported that said anything about “age appropriate” or “touching” or “abuse”.
The bill Obama supported was comprehensive sex education for KINDERGARTNERS.
Franklin. I don’t remember hearing Rove speak of his goals. How do you know the goals of Karl Rove?
Your trying too hard Franklin. Do you seriously have to win EVERY debate for the NEOCONS on this blog?
“(2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
13 be age and developmentally appropriate.”
Uh, Franklin, this language appears in the engrossed bill that I linked a few days ago. Seems like it does direct age and developmentally appropriate course materials and instruction.
Here is the FACT CHECK link:
http://www.factcheck.org/mobile/article.php?id=343&page=2
Obama was the first to bring up the sex issue, against Romney, and now Obama is getting bit by a subject that HE, Obama, brought up!
LL
I have studied Rove enough to know how he works.
He is sending a message to McCain.
That is all.
Rove would rather have NRLC and AFL and other interest groups handle the social issues.
However, the advertising that McCain is running is, basically TRUE!
Obama TRIED to get this sex ed legisation passed, and Obama failed in that attempt.
McCain calls that an “accomplishment” but, so far, Obama has failed in his attempt on this matter.
Will you post your findings AV? I ask because thus far I have found nothing regarding STD and AID’s to Kindergartener’s. It could be there. But it is next to impossible to believe Franklin.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session
Link to SB0099, the bill to which Franklin and I make reference. The language I posted in quotes appears on page two (the site produces the bill as one long page, look under the number 2) at lines 12-13, IIRC.
And, by all means, read the text of the proposed legislation which didn’t become law in Illinois. It is available at the above link.
AV
You are reaching.
Read the part about WHAT will be taught, will you?
What, exactly, is “age appropriate” when you find out that STD’s and AID’s MUST be part of the course study?
Ok Franklin. I will play along. I have studied Rove and I know how he works. He is the one that people loved to hate. That was his role.
I’m kidding of course. I’m just using that to show how stupid you are sounding.
(eyeroll)
” Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in
18 sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.”
I suggest that the legislature, in Illinois, decided that the proposed “change” would be contradictory.
In other words, Obama’s collegues, decided that there was no “age appropriate” way to teach about AIDs and STDs to Kindergartners.
I also can not find any reference to “inappropriate touching” or “sexual abuse” or any of the type of stuff that Obama claims was the SOLE class instruction for the kindergarteners.
Franklin, I read the provisions of the failed legislation in pari materiae.
LLTVET, I’ll give Franklin the following credit: when reading only that particular section, the language literally calls for such education at all levels. However, when taken as a whole, it is not as draconian in tone as Franklin posits.
One other thing, LLTVET. Franklin makes it appear that Sen. Obama was the sponsor and author of the bill. From what I’ve been able to discern, he was neither, although he did support it.
Perpahs av. But when I read Franklin’s post:
There is NOTHING in the bill that Obama supported that said anything about “age appropriate” or “touching” or “abuse”.
And then I read section 9 line 31. What am I supposed to think about Franklin?
And when he speaks as if he somehow knows Karl Rove. I’m serious dude. What would you think?
Randy
” the GOP’s master of dirty tricks”
Some examples if you please.
Or is this just more Left Media mythology?
“17 Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful
18 to touch an intimate part of another person as specified
19 in the Criminal Code of 1961.”
This is at least one part of the bill that Franklin says has nothing to do with “inappropriate touching” that seems to have everything to do with the same, LLTVET. Page 4 of the bill, IIRC.
LL
YES, WAY down in the legislation, the touching and behavior issues are brought up.
You are correct.
So what?
There is NOTHING in the “mandatory” course content area that EXEMPTS Kindergartners from hearing about AID’s and STD’s and other graphic, comprehensive sex ed stuff.
LL
I never said that I “knew” Karl Rove.
(Though I do know people who have worked for Rove)
I said, clearly, that I have studied Rove.
Rove would prefer that the social issue interest groups carry on the battles on the social issues.
It actually shows courage that McCain was willing to bring this issue up, himself.
Don’t know, LLTVET; it is your decision, after all.
He (Franklin) might well have met Mr. Rove at some point; I think his “knowing” Mr. Rove might be stretching it a bit.
BTW, if one Googles a bit, Mr. Rove has provided a bit of an explanation (spin) on his remarks that are the subject of the thread. It appears to me that Franklin’s take on the same is a bit different than what Mr. Rove says.
In other words, LL
It is OBAMA who is being dishonest.
I should have been clear:
Obama claims that “touching” issues would be substituted for the AID’s and STD issues.
This is NOT true.
While such issues are to be included, they are way down towards the bottom of the legislation.
Those “touching” and “abuse” issues do NOT, in any way, substitute for the mandatory STD training for Kindergartners.
There is no “age appropriate” way to do that.
So, the bill that Obama supported failed.
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/rove_speaks.html
LLTVET, if you haven’t tired of this entire thing, see the next-to-last paragraph of the link as to Mr. Rove’s stated rationale for his comments on Fox Sunday.
I do not find, anywhere in the bill that Obama supported, that STD and AID’s training could be dropped, and that “touching” issues could be SUBSTITUTED.
I do not find, anywhere in the legislation, that the term “age appropriate” means that they can ignore the direct order to offer classes, in K-12, which include STD and AID’s classes.
Obama, verbally, claims that such “substitution” would be possible.
The legislation that Obama supported does NOT make that option availabe.
Franklin, it seems to me that those issues are just as mandatory as the one you wish to point out. It is, of course, both our perogatives to stress the portions of the failed legislation which we feel support our opinion.
VT
Since you did not repost it all, I will:
“The subject of McCain’s ad knocking Obama over sex education came up during the question and answer portion of the proceedings last night, and Rove responded by saying – and I’m paraphrasing here – that in his opinion the McCain camp had erred by not being specific enough in its claim.
The bill, Rove pointed out (and which you can see from Byron York’s analysis here this morning), did in fact include specific language that kindergarteners be taught about sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. Rove said that he felt the McCain campaign got “too cute” in using the phrase “comprehensive sex education” which opened the door to enough ambiguity for counter charges to be hurled back at McCain. Better to just let the exact language in the bill speak for itself, Rove said.
Rove went on to say that he thought the Obama campaign was making a serious mistake in using this to try and cast McCain as a dishonorable liar, because the label is fundamentally at odds with the core of McCain’s public image. By spending so much effort trying to make this charge stick, Rove said, the Obama campaign was wasting valuable time that would be better spent offering voters a reason to vote for Obama rather than a reason to vote against McCain.”
I guess Rove has a point.
However, I still say that Rove would also rather have surrogates take on this battle, on behalf of McCain.
It shows courage that McCain took it on, himself.
However, Since Obama brought up the issue, himself, once, in attacking Romney — I am guessing that McCain thought it would be rather odd for Obama to whine like he is, about this issue.
Franklin: You don’t know how Karl Rove works. Step away from the crack pipe chief.
If you don’t like the law that Obama supported. Just say so, but stop stretching so much.
If you would like to be taken seriously, please avoid such phrases as nothing in the bill. Especially if it is in the bill. Also, don’t capitalize nothing. Just a suggestion.
(eyeroll)
NOTHING in the bill says what Obama said.
OK?
Yes, I responded too quickly.
The bill might have said that they should all be given a freshly picked apple, prior to instruction.
Would that have CHANGED the fact that the bill required AID’s and STD instruction, in Kindergarten?
I meant to say that Obama was wrong in claiming some kind of “age appropriate substitution” existed in the bill.
EVERYONE had to get the same basic instruction, as far as course content is concerned, on STD’s and AID’s, Period!
So, I said, “nothing in the bill” and I should have said, “nothing in the Bill says what Obama claims”
ANTI
Posted September 16, 2008 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
Rove, in appearance, reminds me of that fat boy band promoter, Lou I forget his name
__
I always thought Karl Rove was Dick Cheney’s love child. The nut did not fall too from that tree!
And LL
YOU libs try to tell us how Rove and Bush “work” all the time.
I claim the right to do the same.
I admire the man, I have seen him in public, but we have never met, personally.
I admire the man.
I understand him much better than any of the libs on this Blog.
If you libs can tell us what you think of Rove?
Again, I claim the right to tell you what I think of Rove, and how he works.
Age appropriate aids instruction for a five yr. old might be, don’t come in contact with another’s blood or spit. Horror of horrors.
Rove didn’t go nearly far enough, not 100% truth is the understatement of the yr.
This has nothing to do with the man’s non-existent conscience. It’s about strategy.
He must think that ads won’t work.
Heckler–
Asking for examples of Rove’s dirty tricks is like trying to find horse crap in your barnyard.
You can’t take a step without stepping into it.
Among the dirty tricks that Rove has been implicated in are the following:
* a 2000 primary South Caroline “push poll” that asked the following question, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” The “black child” was an adopted dark-skinned girl from Bangladesh.
* the 2000 “white-collar riot” outside vote re-counting centers in Florida to make sure the legally required re-count could not go forward. Local politican Sue Schlapp’s son took part in this ratf***ing of democracy as well.
* timed “terror warnings” whenever Kerry’s poll numbers moved too high.
* formulating the persuasive lies to sell Americans the unnecessary war in Iraq. Jack Abrahmoff reportedly said that Rove had told him about a planned invasion of Iraq a full year before it happened.
Tying Saddam to the 9-11 terror strike (LIE) has long been attributed to Rove, for instance.
* Rove’s strategy was to take an opponent’s greatest strength and turn it into a weakness. This is exactly what the Swift Boat Liars did to John Kerry. Many see Rove’s hand in that.
* the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson for revenge against her husband’s NYTimes Op Ed. Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper testified that Rove was his source.
* the dismissal of Federal prosecutors like David Iglesias for not witch-hunting Democrats–Rove has been convicted of Contempt for refusing to answer a subpeona in the matter.
* violated the Presidential Records Act by using unofficial e-mail accounts for official business. Because of federal probes, Rove was forced to resign.
* the witch-hunting of former Alabama Gov. Don Seigleman who after scores of phony charges was finally convicted although he’s now out of prision (because an appalled judge released him) awaiting appeal. Rove has been subpeonaed, but again, he refuses to appear.
That’s the short-list.
Franklin:
1. I am only a social liberal. I am probably economically more conservative than you are.
2. I have never told you (except in jest) how Karl Rove works.
3. Karl Rove served his role in Dubya’s administration. I have no opinion of his personal character.
4. I’m glad you have an opinion of him that is your own. I hope you enjoy said opinion.
5. You don’t know how he works any more than I do. If you did, you would probably be in Washington as a political analyst.
“Ideologies aren’t all that important. What’s important is psychology.”
James Carville
“The Democratic constituency is just like a herd of cows. All you have to do is lay out enough silage and they come running. That’s why I became an operative working with Democrats. With Democrats all you have to do is make a lot of noise, lay out the hay, and be ready to use the ole cattle prod in case a few want to bolt the herd.”
James Carville
“Eighty percent of the people who call themselves Democrats don’t have a clue as to political reality.”
James Carville
“What amazes me is that you could take a group of people who are hard workers and convince them that they should support social programs that were the exact opposite of their own personal convictions. Put a little fear here and there and you can get people to vote any way you want.”
James Carville
“The voter is basically dumb and lazy. The reason I became a Democratic operative instead of a Republican was because there were more Democrats that didn’t have a clue than there were Republicans.”
James Carville
“Truth is relative. Truth is what you can make the voter believe is the truth. If you’re smart enough, truth is what you make the voter think it is. That’s why I’m a Democrat. I can make the Democratic voters think whatever I want them to.”
James Carville
_______________________________________________
And you liberal nitwits have the balls to critisize Rove?
What an incredibly ignorant bunch of sheeple!
Carville is a dumbass.
He wore PUMA tennis shoes at the convention.
P Party
U Unity
M My
A A$$
The first one is absolutely true Hank. Where you fail to see the rest of the story is in how the GOP (Reagan Democrats especially) are ignorant sheep.
Also. Elephants are supposed to have GOOD memories. I think a Republican President name of Reagan said “Greed works.” Now the Republican President says “Greed caused the problems.”
I think the first was correct. “Greed works.” Just not the way some folks like it to.
And, it takes a libertarian to remind you of that because of your lack of memory.
Sheep?
BTW, I can see Carville saying this, but your sources are none too good . . .
ThinkExist? What the hell is that?
Where’d these quotes come from originally?
Children sometimes try to get out of responsibilities for their actions by crying, “He did it too!”
Should I even start on the butt-boy-Begala? Rove’s job was to get Bush elected and re-elected. 90% of the charges and alegations directed to him are false.
Liberal sour grapes.
It’s not ‘your side did it too’. It’s your side does what you accuse our side of doing!
That’s pretty slick Mr. Rove, wish I had thought of that first. :)
LOL. Hank, you are too much. Rove did the same thing that Carville did: They got their man elected. And the majority of charges against both men are stupid.
What I don’t understand is why you need to say that your side is innocent and the other side isn’t. You somehow think that doesn’t make you look like a sheep?
hehehehe
The good captain wants me to explain a source?
Yeh, right!
nitwit
Hey LL,
“What I don’t understand is why you need to say that your side is innocent and the other side isn’t.”
Innocent? Problem is, when a republican does it, it’s considered a crime by the sheeple. When a dem does it, it’s clever politiken.
Rove was good, damn good. That’s a crime if you’re a republican. Rove found Bush in ‘99, not the opposite.
Oh Hank. Stop sniveling. The Democrats are not treated better than the Republicans. Dana Carville was hated just as much as Karl Rove was. Stop acting like your party is such a victim.
Barack Obama has been run over the coals just as much as Palin and McCain have. There is no liberal media bias. This blog is not the Obama Election Headquarters. My God Man. Your party is ahead. And you are still insisting on some conspiracy.
LOL.
Enjoy everyone. It’s quitting time
Sniveling?
LOL
Interesting mis-characterization of my observations.
I’m elevating you to ‘nitwit’.
You’ll like the company now that hank has promoted you, LLTVET. Bunch of really good folks (everyone on this board who has ever disagreed with Hank!) who know how to look at reality, have fun, poke fun, can give it and take it.
‘tin wit’ is an anagram for nitwit.
Capn
You are a liar.
You know full well that Rove had NOTHING to do with this, as I have proven that point to you, in the past:
“CapnAmerica
Posted September 16, 2008 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
Heckler–
Asking for examples of Rove’s dirty tricks is like trying to find horse crap in your barnyard.
You can’t take a step without stepping into it.
Among the dirty tricks that Rove has been implicated in are the following:
* a 2000 primary South Caroline “push poll” that asked the following question, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” The “black child” was an adopted dark-skinned girl from Bangladesh.”
—-
More to the point, nobody can prove that ANYONE ever received such a “push poll” — the Bush Campaign released a complete list of all telephone scripts.
An effort was made to get ANYONE to come forward, who claimed to have received such a phone call.
Nobody came forward.
The Bush Campaign had NOTHING to do with any of this, even if it did happen.
Rove had nothing to do with this, even if it did happen.
However, there is NO proof that it did happen! A hyperactive McCain operative heard a rumor, expressed it to McCain as fact, and has never been able to prove the rumor, since that time.
End of story.
Capn
What laws were broken, by anyone on the Bush, during the phoney Democrat “recount”?
NONE!
Again, you are not telling the truth Capn.
Rove did not “out” Valerie Plame.
The legal departments of EVERY major news organization in the country agrees with ME on this one.
The reporters who were charged with contempt of court in this matter, in their own legal defense, claimed that Plame had been “outed” by: Her husband, Joe Wilson, the Cubans, the Russians, AND the CIA itself!
You can only be “outed” once.
Rove is no more guilty of “outing” Plame than YOU are guitly, for claiming that Plame worked for the CIA! (HOW DARE YOU OUT PLAME Capn!)
Another excellent editorial by David Brooks. I am becoming a fan.
http://www.kansas.com/205/story/530853.html
It is also a blessing that most republicans will not listen to Brooks.
Poor ole Franklin needs to cut back on the caffiene. His nerves seem more jangled than usual.
“Rove had nothing to do with this, even if it did happen.”
Dude, take some deep breaths. You are starting to sound much sillier than usual.
Having Franklin call one a liar is like BTK call you cruel.
When HE says it, it’s a compliment.
Funny how either McCain or Bush is lying about the push poll incident.
Republicans attacking Republicans, that’s what I call a win-win situation.
“Sniveling?
“LOL
“Interesting mis-characterization of my observations.
“I’m elevating you to ‘nitwit’.”
Please. You throw this label at people who make you look like the nitwit as if it is a rebuttal.
I bet you think LLVET is a liberal.
And then we have Franklin, going where even, it appears, Rove won’t go (I suspect, however, that Rove’s agenda is more complex that it appears here). Is there any doubt that Franklin is an integrity free shill?
For bullsh*t free analysis of this topic.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html
The first link, by the way, is the article that a number of posters here (mostly self identified on the right) have linked to as a Newsweek article. Newsweek, however, simply reprinted the Fact Check article, with attribution.
Rove probably wrote the ads. That’s how they play.
What did Rove say?
Rove said that McCain should have used the works:
“HIV and STD included in Sex Ed training to Kindergartners” instead of:
“Comprehensive Sex Ed to Kindergartners”???
Big deal.
The commercial is accurate, except for the fact that Obama did not get his way.
I understand him much better than any of the libs on this Blog.
Now THAT’S scary. But I don’t know if it’s scary for Franklin or for Karl Rove.
By the way, our wonderful guv just injected race back into the Presidential race:
“Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius accused Republicans on Tuesday of injecting race into the presidential campaign, arguing that they are using “code language” to convince Midwesterners that Democrat Barack Obama is different from them.
“Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American?” Sebelius asked with sarcasm. “(Republicans) are not going to go lightly into the darkness.”
Sebelius was responding to a question from the audience at the Iowa City Public Library about the tenacity of Democrats and whether they would fight for victory as hard as Republicans in the closing weeks of the election.
She did not elaborate on her comment.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2083833/posts
Rove is scum and even HE thinks McCain is outta line.
Ya got Palin all over the place about the investigation of her improper use of office. McCain is spewing lies.
We will begin to see the tailspin soon.
Karl Rove: patriot
File this under “Damn Shame . . .”
The polls reflected the early success of Palin’s “human interest” strategy. In the three days after Palin joined Team McCain–Aug. 29-31–32 percent of voters told the pollsters at Diageo/Hotline that they had a favorable opinion of her; most (48 percent) didn’t know enough to say. By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving–an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing. Four days later, Palin’s approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers–22 percent–was larger than either McCain’s (+20) or Obama’s (+13).
But then a funny thing happened: Palin lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin’s unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That’s a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll with the smallest favorability split (+10) of any of the Final Four. Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.
What happened? I’d argue that Palin’s considerable novelty is starting to wear off. In part it’s the result of a steady stream of unhelpful stories: her unfamiliarity with the Bush Doctrine during last Thursday’s interview with Charles Gibson (video above); her refusal to cooperate with the Troopergate investigation; her repeated stretching of the truth on everything from earmarks to the Bridge to Nowhere to the amount of energy her state produces. That stuff has a way of inspiring disapproval and eroding one’s support. (Interestingly, Palin’s preparedness numbers–about 50 percent yes, 45 percent no–haven’t budged.) But mostly it’s the start of an inevitable process. Between now and Nov. 4, voters will stop seeing Palin as a fascinating story and starting taking her measure as an actual candidate for office. Some will approve; some won’t. It remains to be seen whether Palin’s recent slide will continue, or hurt John McCain in the polls. But it’s hard to argue that the journey from intriguing new superstar to earthbound politician–a necessary part of the process–doesn’t involve a loss of altitude
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/16/palin-s-favorability-ratings-begin-to-falter.aspx
McCain and Palin have peaked. There’s no where to go but down, down, down . . .
From what I hear, that balding Pillsbury dough-boy must resemble you a lot, KSGolfNut.
Thank God, there’s still one sport you can participate in–a slow game for old men . . .
“But then a funny thing happened: Palin lost some of her luster. ”
Hell she could lose 10 points just from people hearing her speak.
Unfortunately for McCain, he could not spring her on the public 4 days before the election.
Capn is following in typical loony left fashion: egregious personal insults.
*shrug*
No reason to expect any different.
Hey Pall,
Interested in your opinion on the nationalizing of AIG (with the government owning an 80% share), and the probable takeover of the insurance industry by your old buddy Bush, that confirmed capitalist.
My take?
Letting Lehman go to bankruptcy court was, in part, necessary on two levels.
First, there was a “poison pill” that Lehman had agreed to, with a previous infusion of cash.
That agreement would have required any new stock to be issued at a fixed price, that was now higher than “market” —
Bankruptcy court will allow that contract to be ignored now.
Also, allowing Lehman to go broke will sober any other firm asking for help.
Look folks, study the Securities Acts, that came about after the depression.
Study the SIPC, and what it means.
Government DOES have a responsiblity to protect the market.
Government does NOT have a responsibility to bail out shareholders.
So far, shareholders have taken it on the chin, in all of these deals, as it should be.
I would also agree, however, that the high paid execs should feel more than just their stock being devalued.
“The commercial is accurate, except for the fact that Obama did not get his way.”
More bullsh*t from integrity free man.
“Karl Rove: patriot”
KSGolfnut: Troll
DNFTST
Maybe if palin loses 10 pds. she can pick up 10 pts.!
More bullsh*t free analysis from Fact Check.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/school_funding_misleads.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html
And here is Fact Check on Corsi’s POS “book”
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/corsis_dull_hatchet.html
A “dull hatchet” indeed.
Pall,
More specifically, what about the government bailout of AIG in exchange for a much more than controlling interest in the firm? Wouldn’t such an interest leave the government with financial control of much if not most of the insurance industry, and likely end with the industry being for all practical purposes wholly or partially owned subsidiary of government? In other words, isn’t this the definition of socialism?
Pall,
“I would also agree, however, that the high paid execs should feel more than just their stock being devalued.”
Are you suggesting cutting the cords on golden parachutes? Jail time? Making them restart their careers as stock boys and restroom attendants?
I’m not in favor of jail time for stupidity (although it makes for great fantasies). However, those who cooked books and engaged in illegal practices ought to spend a few fun-filled years sharing a cell with a bruiser named Bubba who was convicted of serial cannibalism on live victims. The problem of course is the limited supply of Bubbas.
CraponAmerica = King of “scroll over” posts.
Come with SOMETHING dude!