I'm not going to take the time to go over it right now, but every single one of Rove's comments is backed up with the actual votes or words of Obama and Clinton....it is truly brilliant.
Then you hear the media say it is "negative."
Why?
Pointing out the shortcomings, unpopular votes and stupid comments made by your opponent is not negative.
If you disagree, tell me how.
What are you supposed to talk about?
You say what you think and then say what your opponent thinks and says. In regards to conservatives, they have to point out what liberals actually think and the actual decisions they make because when election time comes around liberals turn into moderate Republicans so they can get elected.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Rove previews strategies against Clinton, Obama
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Probably the 'brilliant' man should help conservatives to find a good leader and help win the elections. Instead, he is doing what he does the best - playing these dirty tricks.
Is it what all the 'brilliant' folks from republican side are doing? Is it why the conservatives are clueless , electing a different candidate for every state? Well I thought I would ask these 'dumb liberal' questions to 'brilliant' people!
game, he is a political operative who is spouting a political line of rhetoric, and you are taking it all as gospel without even stopping to consider the accuracy or truthfulness of each point individually, as well as the context that comes from taking the results of such critical analysis as a whole
it's very peculiar to me that you believe you can credibly laud one "party's" tactics and denounce the other's as worthy of condemnation, without regarding ALL of these machinations as detrimental to our nation and the political process entirely
in other words, you hate liberals so much, you're willing to take the whole country down to score your team a "win"
and, obviously, so does karl rove
How can someone write so much and say NOTHING...really.
NO specifics, just emotional crap.
Give specifics.
What did he say that was incorrect.
i don't see any emotion in the poster's response, just simple facts
what do you believe karl rove's role in this election is, then?
name a fact...all general DailyKos material, no substance.
"Specifically, Rove hit Clinton for what could have been her worst campaign moment last year, when she had trouble answering a question about driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants at the Democratic debate in Philadelphia."
here, the douchebag is correct
yet the douchebag fails to remind the audience that NO republican candidate has a coherent plan for stopping the illegals and deporting the ones already here, because they WANT the illegals here, and they want MORE, their constituents are the only ones stupid enough not to see the proof of this fact on their own street corners, yet keep voting them in like sheep anyway
so, fail on that one
I'll actually let that one through...and I don't have to respond because your own words do you in...
Oh, but I HAVE to respond.
Typical crap about the mythical Republican prejudice. What malarkey. And what interests would they be voting against except government handouts and the lib notion that they are too stupid and incompetent to run their own lives and make their own decisions?
Next, a woman is a douchebag and a man is a scumbag. Just ask George Carlin.
Then, Hillary DID stumble on the issue and to pin her down is sound tactics not just for her opponents, but for the people she expects to support her. Maybe even more so. It's a separate topic from what the GOP guys plan to do and specific to her.
So Game, is that Hash again?
The use of an opponent's own words against him is not negative campaigning if the words are contexturally accurate. We complain when such ads and such take things out of context or just plain make shit up.
Here's an example:
The Lurch Kerry "I voted for it before I voted against it" was actually misused. It was an obvious line upon which to jump, but it wasn't actually accurate. But that's OK with me because when you hear the entire context, his comments and reasons for changing his vote are just as stupid. For my part, I would rather they focussed on what followed that now notorious line. I will say, however, that the line typified his tendencies to flip-flop and pander.
Anon,
I get tired of responding to “Anon”, there seems to be more than one who is so ashamed of themselves, that they can’t even create a false persona for us to respond to.
What makes you specifically think that Latino’s and Asians would be “voting against their interest”? What makes you think that Republicans “hate working people and poor people”? “Hate working people”, what a bullshit, sophomoric, accusation! You people are so deficient in ideas that you have to make up crap in order to be recognized.
Mere talking points are all you have! Name some specifics man!!! You chicken little, softball thrower!
Most of the Asians I know that have immigrated to this country, are hard working individuals that support nothing the Dem’s put forth! They see the “entitlement” mentality every day of their lives. What is it about Republicans that you think scare them so much?
I really don’t expect an answer from your chicken-little ass, nor from your Comrades-in-arms.
every single one of Rove's comments is backed up with the actual votes or words of Obama and Clinton
Are you okay? Because this is so incredibly false you'd have to be ill or on crack to believe it. For example, Rove said, " 'the woman' wants to repeal all of Bush’s tax cuts," which is verifiably false:
WOULD YOU ROLL BACK TAX CUTS THAT WERE SUPPORTED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION?
I have called for reinstating the pre-Bush income tax rates for those earning over $250,000 as part of my plan to provide quality affordable health care to all Americans. I also oppose the Bush administration's commitment to completely eliminate the estate tax. Instead, I would freeze the estate tax at $7 million per couple and redirect those revenues to provide tax credits to help tens of million of families save and invest as part of my American Retirement Accounts proposal. Finally, I would extend the middle class tax cuts, including the 10 percent income tax rate, the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief.
Or this one: "Rove served notice that Obama and Clinton would be targeted over how they vote on any Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation that comes before the Senate this year.
“Do they or do they not want our intelligence officials to be listening in on terrorists’ conversations in the Middle East who may … be plotting to hurt America?” Rove said.
False again; unless Clinton and Obama vote to repeal the 1978 FISA law--which neither has done or suggested doing--the intelligence community has every right and opportunity to listen to calls among terror suspects. No vote Clinton or Obama has cast threatens that right at all.
Rove is not "truly brilliant." He's a lying gasbag.
I have to commend Jay for atleast trying and not simply typing emotional rants like his liberal friends.
However,
When someone wants to get rid of something, they are against it. The Bush tax cuts are tax cuts for EVERYONE, so when you are against the tax cuts for the most successful americans, you are against the Bush tax cuts, since they pay almost all the taxes.
Bush has tried (maybe not enough) to rebuild our CIA and FBI from the Clinton years...the things he has done have kept us free from terrorism for quite awhile. Therefore, if you are against the things Bush has done to keep us safe, most Americans would agree you are not willing to do effective things to keep us safe. I know, it makes you sick to your stomach to think some scum bags telephone conversation might be listened to without getting all 75 pages of paperwork done first, but I don't mind. When you find some stories of the govt "illegally" listening to the average Joe and simply throwing them in jail, then get back to me. And don't like to a story about the people from terror cells that were arrested after 911.
To be tough and safe, you usually have to do things that PC liberals will not like, since we have seen that PC liberal policy is exactly what makes us weak to the rest of the world.
so you gave a good try, but are 0 for 2. So try with the rest of his comments.
And no one has said why bringing up your opponents own positions is negative.
So, Game, you commend me for seeking out fact and "not simply typing emotional rants."
But then your answer to my post is some rambling "Rove may have been telling a lie but it's kind of thr truth if you squint real hard" BS? Heal thyself, man.
And Jay just lowered himself to the level of the other liberals on the page.
Why did you have to lower yourself Jay?
You made two points, I challenged your two points with logic...then you come back with emotionalism. Bad week at work?
game,
Jay has just been having a bad week on the blogs. He's been getting his teeth kicked in all over.
What logic was that, exactly, Game? You posited something (that "every single one of Rove's comments is backed up with the actual votes or words") that turned out to be false, and I demonstrated that.
In other words, you were wrong. Karl Rove spoke demonstrable untruths.
For example, what Karl Rove actually said--what you claimed was "backed up with the actual [...] words" of Hillary Clinton--was that Clinton wanted to "repeal all of Bush's tax cuts." That is untrue, and you know it.
So this was your answer:
The Bush tax cuts are tax cuts for EVERYONE, so when you are against the tax cuts for the most successful [A]mericans, you are against the Bush tax cuts.
In other words, according to your "logic," the definition of "all" has now been re-written to mean "something less than all if it otherwise means what I said was a lie."
Or the other issue. Rove actually implied that Clinton and Obama "do [...] not want our intelligence officials to be listening in on terrorists’ conversations in the Middle East who may … be plotting to hurt America.”
Remember, you said this was "backed up with the actual votes or words of Obama and Clinton." Fact is, Obama and Clinton have neither voted to end the practice nor have they spoken out against the practice of listening to suspected terrorists' calls, faxes, or emails. So this was your response:
[I]f you are against the things Bush has done to keep us safe, most Americans would agree you are not willing to do effective things to keep us safe.
So your "logic" is that "if they don't do what I like, then I can lie about their records and it's okay because they're not doing what I like."
Additionally, you're wrong about the "most Americans" thing. A poll from the Wall Street Journal (.pdf) shows that 53% of Americans think the administration "Should be required to get a court order before wiretapping."
Plus, you ask, "When you find some stories of the govt 'illegally' listening to the average Joe and simply throwing them in jail, then get back to me." I'd be happy to. Were you not paying attention last year to the National Security Letters comntroversy last year? That was textbook--the "govt" was "illegally" gathering intelligence on "the average Joe."
Moreover, no one knows whether the warrantless wiretaps have been abused or used on "the average Joe," because everytime anyone has tried to learn that information--the ACLU, Congress, the media--the administration has refused to answer questions. They have said "Let the courts decide" and then demanded that the courts throw out the cases based on national security.
And here's the part that just may blow your mind: The Bush Administration started its warrantless wiretapping in February 2001. So when you say "the things [Bush] has done have kept us free from terrorism," that, too, is untrue! The warrantless wiretapping didn't stop 9/11 or the anthrax attacks. Period!
So, by your "logic," if the biggest attack on American soil ever happens in spite of a questionably legal spying regime, it really means "Iook at how completely I've swallowed the lies of Karl Rove."
Give me a break.
Points:
Obama and Clinton would repeal the Bush tax cuts...they might create tax breaks for the middle class in return or just lie like Bill did about the issue.
wiretaps:
Hillary voted oted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
So there ya go, more facts.
Too bad Jay can't do anything but parrot posts from the Kool-aid sites like Think Progress.
"Obama and Clinton would repeal the Bush tax cuts...they might create tax breaks for the middle class in return or just lie like Bill did about the issue."
absolutely, someone has to pay for the iraq debacle, and of course, it will be the working people who did not want it in the first place
who ever heard of tax CUTS during a time of war? could it be there's a valid reason for that?
does the right really believe they are immune from paying their taxes forevermore?
does the right really believe there can never again be another tax increase, and reality really works like that?
"Hillary voted oted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)"
very true
and that is because she is a republican in democratic clothing, owned by powerful special interests
next
anon number 124342 said:
"Hillary voted oted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)"
very true
and that is because she is a republican in democratic clothing, owned by powerful special interests
That comment makes as much sense as pissing your pants right next to a urinal
Hillary voted oted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.
FISA does not require, and has never required, warrants for the NSA to listen on conversations "abroad." FISA was written to protect "US persons," meaning citizens and others on US soil. Go learn something, man.
Here is what the August 2007 FISA bill did (and Clinton rightly voted no):
NSA (and the White House) were specifically looking for new authority to monitor communications that included U.S. persons. And not just communications related to terrorism. They wanted a free hand for warrantless surveillance of any communication between foreigners and Americans that was related to foreign intelligence in any way.
And then, once Democrats reluctantly agreed to that, they decided they wanted even more: the authority to monitor any communications — including domestic calls — "concerning" foreigners. With no FISA court oversight at all. [. . .] From the get-go, they wanted a vastly broadened ability to monitor calls on U.S. soil without a warrant, and they wanted the FISA court out of the picture.
And in the end, thanks to incompetence on the part of the Democratic leadership, they got wildly more than they had ever thought possible. There is, at this point, virtually no oversight on NSA's data collection at all. Hooray.
Obama and Clinton would repeal the Bush tax cuts
I never said they would not allow many of them to sunset (a provision in the laws written by Republican lawmakers, by the way). What I told you was that Karl Rove lied when he said "all," and, further, that you stepped in it when you said that Rove's lie was backed up by the words of the candidates. You're trying to weasel out of those statements and you can't admit that, one, you were wrong, and, two, Karl Rove is a liar.
Post a Comment