Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Why is anyone listening to Karl Rove anyway? He's been pretty wrong about just about everything concerning policy over the last 8 years, and about everything regarding electoral politics in the last 2 or 3. Furthermore, you can't trust anything he says because it usually comes attached to an alterior motive, so it's hard to really know which things that he writes should be taken seriously and which should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, if I was a newspaper editor, I don't think I'd want to be associated with a criminal like Rove.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I reminded about once every other month that I'm about the only person born in the 70s who hasn't seen The Goonies.

 

I don't think I've ever seen it in its entirety in one sitting. But I think I've caught all the various pieces of it over the years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is anyone listening to Karl Rove anyway. He's been pretty wrong about just about everything concerning policy over the last 8 years, and about everything regarding electoral politics in the last 2 or 3. Furthermore, you can't trust anything he says because it usually comes attached to an alterior motive, so it's hard to really know which things that he writes should be taken seriously and which should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, if I was a newspaper editor, I don't think I'd want to be associated with a criminal like Rove.

 

Yeah, but who doesn't have an ulterior motive these days? Especially involving politics during an election year.

 

Criminal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough about Rove -- I want to get back to talking about Hillary. Daniel, talk about batshit math -- and the fact that the media is lapping it up for the most part.

 

Here is an excellent article about how she is running roughshod over the popular vote totals to try to slant them in her favor. I mean.... really.

 

Look at Clinton's math. She leads only if you give her 328,000 votes for the Soviet-style Michigan election, while giving Obama zero for not being on the ballot. And if you then ignore the caucuses of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and my own state of Washington -- where a record quarter million people turned out to participate. Our votes don't count under Clinton's math. She disappears them down the memory hole of history in an argument that invents reality as much as Bush's claims of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction or Clinton's earlier story about running the gauntlet of Bosnian sniper fire.

 

If the media corrected this, it would be less of a problem, but they haven't, or at least not in the same stories where they repeat her claim. The AP story in my local Seattle newspaper reported Clinton's claim without question, saying only that it included contested Florida and Michigan votes and excluded the Iowa caucuses. The otherwise excellent New York Times story included not even the slightest corrections or caveats, although the Times has done other stories on the subject. Neither mentioned that polls actually have Obama doing marginally better in Michigan than Clinton, nor have they explored the impact of roughly 60,000 Democratic voters who crossed over in Michigan to vote Republican, many of whom were participating in a mirror image of Rush Limbaugh's "operation chaos" campaign. Clinton's argument also ignores that this isn't how the rules are set up, and that if they had been, Obama would have made time, following the Iowa victory that made voters take him seriously, to have made more than three brief visits to California and one to New York State.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to know when I said that.

Maybe I am projecting my anxiety over Obama being the nominee and getting smeared by McCain in November. If so, I am sorry. Obama has a shot, but he's gotta do what Kennedy had to do - convince middle-of-the-road people that he's not some version of Che Guevara. Obama has his own special additional challenge of convincing a lot of women that he's not a total bastard for jumping Hillary's spot in line.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is anyone listening to Karl Rove anyway? He's been pretty wrong about just about everything concerning policy over the last 8 years, and about everything regarding electoral politics in the last 2 or 3. Furthermore, you can't trust anything he says because it usually comes attached to an alterior motive, so it's hard to really know which things that he writes should be taken seriously and which should be taken with a grain of salt. Also, if I was a newspaper editor, I don't think I'd want to be associated with a criminal like Rove.

 

Getting George W. Bush elected, TWICE, makes him a threat not to be ignored in my book. I can tell you that it wouldn't shock mountain bed to learn that Rove and Cheney enjoy a nice live puppy appetizer in the evening along with their scotch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The polls for Obama vs. McCain and Hillary v. McCain are pretty interesting. Hillary does better in the traditional battleground states, but Obama puts in play western states the Democrats have had a long time in. Of course, most people figure that the Dem nominee (Obama) will get a boost in the polls once it becomes official.

 

Obama and Edwards poll particularly well against McCain with any of the Republican also-rans as veep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little off-topic, but the slobbering and drooling over Obama by the media is embarrassing. Seriously.

 

Even Conan O'Brien, who I love, avoids any jokes slamming Obama, but has no problem ripping on Hillary and McCain.

 

 

 

This past Tuesday, Conan told 4 politcal jokes:

 

- "Hillary's is expected to win Kentucky. Obama is expected to win in Oregon. McCain is expected to win at Bingo."

 

- "Obama met with an Indian chief. The chief gave him the name "Black Eagle". The chief gave Hillary the name "Runs Even After Losing."

 

- "Bush is going to Europe. Bush says he can't wait because he's never seen a kangaroo before."

 

- "McCain supporters are concerned about his age being really apparent on HD televisions. Before HD he looks like this (Conan shows a picture of McCain). On HD, he looks like this (a picture of Larry King is shown).

 

 

 

I watch the late night shows a lot, and this trend is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO old and lame. Lettermen's Great Moments in Presidential Speeches is way past being remotely funny.

 

 

In a nutshell, TV show hosts political jokes are:

 

- Hillary is a crazy, loony nutjob.

- McCain is 134 years old and unfit for President.

- Bush is a dumbass with the IQ of a pre-schooler.

- Obama is Jesus Christ returned.

 

 

C'mon. Am I the only one who finds this bothersome and lame?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Getting George W. Bush elected, TWICE, makes him a threat not to be ignored in my book. I can tell you that it wouldn't shock mountain bed to learn that Rove and Cheney enjoy a nice live puppy appetizer in the evening along with their scotch.

That's nice of you to think of me, Poon. :thumbup

 

Also, I think worrying about McCain winning in November is a bit premature - the one thing talking heads usually don't mention is that (at least in the primaries) Dems have brought more voters to the polls by about 2 to 1. I don't think Rush has THAT much influence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of stupidity that has come out of this Yale graduates mouth over the last 8 years says to me that either

 

Bush plays Dumb

Bush is brainwashed

Bushs name got him his diploma

seriously

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a dude on the radio here who parodies Larry King . Last night: "Bush has got back from his "Screwing Up The World Tour '08". He said he was disappointed when visiting the Wailing Wall - 'I didn't see one whale' " . :rolleyes

Link to post
Share on other sites

So - Friday (Memorial Day weekend, y'all) is the big day. McCain is going to release his medical records. Now, check this out - here's how they're gonna do it!

 

A selected few people will go to a special room and have 3 hours, and 3 hours only, to review nearly 1500 pages of records. No electronic devices allowed. No copying, no cell phones, etc. They have to make handwritten notes on what they see. Am I the only one who finds this just a little bit strange? Wtf does this guy have to hide? Hmmm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So - Friday (Memorial Day weekend, y'all) is the big day. McCain is going to release his medical records. Now, check this out - here's how they're gonna do it!

 

A selected few people will go to a special room and have 3 hours, and 3 hours only, to review nearly 1500 pages of records. No electronic devices allowed. No copying, no cell phones, etc. They have to make handwritten notes on what they see. Am I the only one who finds this just a little bit strange? Wtf does this guy have to hide? Hmmm.

That is a bit suspect. Sounds like a scene in Citizen Kane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So when are Clinton and Obama releasing their medical records?

Completely irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So when are Clinton and Obama releasing their medical records?

 

They both did, months ago.

 

I remember reading that all of his records regarding mental health and possible effects from his POW imprisonment were released back in 1999 or 2000 before that presidential run.

 

Only sort of. He did the same thing he's doing now with his other medical records -- a small group of reporters were able to access them for a few minutes and not bring anything to record any of it other than a notepad and pen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...