How to Beat Hillary (Next) November

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Buckaroo @ 11/21/2007 2:37:08 PM

    I didn't read this article. Just wanted to let you know that I will not renewing my subscription. I don't want any of my money going to Mr. Rove.

  • Posted By: Buckaroo @ 11/21/2007 2:36:01 PM

    I didn't read this article. Just wanted to let you know that I will not be renewing my subscription. I don't want any of my money going to Mr. Rove.

  • Posted By: mretux @ 11/21/2007 2:02:27 PM

    Bush has been smeared by the media..his presidency has been ambushed by the liberal left who hates the conservative agenda..nothing more..nothing less....see thru the blinding lies and media hype...we have terrorists to deal with..they are liars and not to be trusted...the war we are fighting is under a new "set of rules" with a poeple that don't play by the rules....I htink Bush has done an outstanding job...I wouldn't want any social liberal at the helm trying to keep our borders protected...they don't know how. Hilary Clinton is a scary person...do the research...besides..the Cliontons have been in power and madea mockery of the office of the Presidency....and they have broken laws..how soon you forget all of the scandal surrounding them and their cronies from Arkansas.

    • Posted By: cmicah6:8 @ 11/21/2007 2:34:04 PM

      Yes, attacks are coming from both sides on this message board; however, if you read the messages you will discover that the attacks from one side are backed by facts, facts that can be verified. The attacks from the otherside are repeats of the same GOP party line (talking points) we get from Republican congressman, FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc., ect. Heck, just yesterday we found out that Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, lied to the media (and thus, the American people) on behalf of Bush, Cheney, Libby, and Rove concerning the outing of Valerie Plame. No one on the political center or the left and no one in the media made this up just to smear Bush. McClellan said it himself in his new book.

    • Posted By: thrasher32 @ 11/21/2007 2:31:00 PM

      Oh wait, you also made a disparaging comment about the Clinton's scandals, so let's address that as well. Hmm, let's see, Bill lgot a BJ, and Dubya killed 5,000+ American kids and destroyed the economy. Which do you think is worse? Talk about disgracing the White House, Clinton may have embarrassed us, but at least he didn't destroy our credibility and standing in the inetrantional community. Dee Dee Deeeeee

      Seriously man, turn off Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly for a minute and try thinking for yourself.

    • Posted By: thrasher32 @ 11/21/2007 2:27:27 PM

      The "conservative agenda" is to promote fear in order to start wars to kill the poor and make the rich richer. So yes, most people are opposed to that. GWB is not some kind of hero, he is a terrorist himself and deserves nothing less than to stand trial and be imprisoned or worse for starting a war under false pretenses and killing hundereds of thousands of human beings, including our own American children, for nothing less than building his own ego and lining his and his cronie's pockets.

      But I see you swallowed the story hook line and sinker, I'm just glad that most of the people in this country can see through the lies and hatred that this administration constantly spews.

      But on the other hand, we have GWB and his lackeys to thank for killing the conservative movement (THANK GOD) and ensuring that people with brains will be running this country for the next 20-30 years.

      As for you, I would take my head out of the sand before someone runs up and kicks you in your rear end.

  • Posted By: Erin13 @ 11/21/2007 2:13:31 PM

    Good points, Mr. Rove. But would your ideas to help the Republican nominee win the election be the same if the Democratic nominee does not turn out to be Hillary Clinton?

    The presidential election is eleven months away. Anything can happen.

  • Posted By: mretux @ 11/19/2007 6:15:57 PM

    I really believe that we have our eyes on the wrong thing...let's vote for a man who can keep his moral life from stinkin up the joint! Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter are good candidates. I could really care less about Karl Rove. The Ckintons accepted just as much money if not more from the rich..so don't even go there....like the dems don't pander and suck up to the wealthy! Get real people!

    Moral character and doing what's right when nobody's looking ...that's the check list.

    • Posted By: rlk42 @ 11/20/2007 1:07:19 PM

      We don't need more overly religious anti-evolution nutbags like Huckabee and Hunter in the White House.

      • Posted By: mretux @ 11/21/2007 1:55:07 PM

        WRONG! We need people who honor God and who behave the right way even when noone else is looking..not liars, cheaters, adulterers, suck-ups, and the morally bankrupt.

  • Posted By: NeilSagan @ 11/21/2007 12:58:56 PM

    Here is what Time magazine said about its own consideration to hire Karl Rove, I'll paraphrase...We recognize acceptable boundaries for personal conduct; Rove has repeatedly violated those boundaries, and consequently we won't deal with the sonofabitch

  • Posted By: NeilSagan @ 11/21/2007 12:52:15 PM

    We do not know why Roveavoided indictment when he and other White House officials disclosed the identity of a covert CIA Agent. We do know Rove leaked Plame???s identity to Time Magazine and we do know Rove called Chris Matthews to declare "VALARIE PLAME IS FAIR GAME." That sure spells out TREASON clearly to me.

    As a CIA agent, Plame's identity is supposed to be protected under the laws of our country from nare do wells like Karl Rove and Scooter Libby and, sad but true, Dick Cheney.

    Now we learn from Scott McClellan that George Bush was involved in reassuring Scott that neither Libby nor Rove leaked Plame's identity, which we know to be untrue. Rove and Libby did leak Plame's identity as did Armitage and that spells conspiracy.

    If you listened to the closing argument in the trial, you'd have heard Patrick Fitzgerald tell you that Dick Cheney was running the thing. If starting a war on false pretenses is not treasonous, then surely outing a CIA agent is. Impeach Cheney. Try Rove for treason.

  • Posted By: NeilSagan @ 11/21/2007 12:32:14 PM

    Karl Rove has been implicated in criminality in the White House time and again; the Abramoff scandal, US Attorney Purge scandal, lost White House email scandal, wholesale politicization of government scandal. Karl Rove is essentially an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies.

    Is there truth to the rumor he shopped for a job to rehabilitate his credibility at Time, and was rejected? Shame on Newsweek for hiring this nefarious propagandist and dirty-trick politico who has razed the tenor of political dialogue and employed underhanded and unethical political tactics in our country.

  • Posted By: NeilSagan @ 11/21/2007 12:30:40 PM

    Karl Rove has been implicated in criminality in the White House time and again; the Abramoff scandal, US Attorney Purge scandal, lost White House email scandal, wholesale politicization of government scandal. Karl Rove is essentially an unindicted coconspirator in a whole string of felonies. Is there truth to the rumor he shopped for a job to rehabilitate his credibility at Time, and was rejected? Shame on Newsweek for hiring this nefarious propagandist and dirty-trick politico who has razed the tenor of political dialogue and political tactics in our country.

  • Posted By: elijia @ 11/21/2007 12:11:28 PM

    Shame on you Newsweek. You've lost all credibility with this sensationalist "op-ed" piece.

  • Posted By: Martiki @ 11/21/2007 11:59:22 AM

    Rove deserves to be in jail, not spinning on Newsweek's pages.

    Subscription cancelled.

  • Posted By: Martiki @ 11/21/2007 11:57:56 AM

    Rove deserves to be in jail, not spinning on Newsweek's pages.

    Subscription cancelled.

  • Posted By: Sane in Utah @ 11/20/2007 2:36:48 PM

    I'm just trying to figure out why Rovey isn't in the pokey

    • Posted By: ArcherB @ 11/20/2007 2:47:24 PM

      Because he has not broken any laws. That's more than I can say for the Clintons! (Note: I don't want to see Clinton in jail either. It would look bad for the US to have a former President in jail! I love America more than I dislike Clinton. Can you say the same for Bush?)

      • Posted By: cmicah6:8 @ 11/20/2007 2:54:28 PM

        What laws did the Clintons break, pray tell? Oh yeh, he perjured himself by lying about a blow job, something that shoul not have been anyone's business other than his and Hillary's. Give me a break.

        • Posted By: tiredofpoliticsasusualbydems @ 11/20/2007 7:31:56 PM

          oh, it's ok to lie?

          • Posted By: cmicah6:8 @ 11/20/2007 7:42:08 PM

            He he committed perjury over a blow job, for crying out loud. No one died. And he was impeached for it.

            • Posted By: tiredofpoliticsasusualbydems @ 11/20/2007 8:28:16 PM

              But it is ok to lie as the President, when you see fit to do it? Is that right?

              • Posted By: madest @ 11/20/2007 9:22:42 PM

                In my eyes president Clinton lied about a personal matter that had nothing to do with Whitewater. It was an outrageous question set upon the president by a right wing spin machine that did everything they could to tear the man down. Even during his impeachment Clinton enjoyed poll numbers in the 50's. Bush has been in the low 30's for so long he probably wishes he had the abilities Clinton had.

                • Posted By: tiredofpoliticsasusualbydems @ 11/20/2007 10:17:15 PM

                  So you agree with me, it's ok for a President to decide when he will lie and when he will tell the truth! Or is it only a Dem president that is permitted to do so? Isn't perjuty perjuy? And oh, by the way, stop with the no one died stuff. If Bill had done the job he should have after the first World Trade Center attack, there would have been less of a problem later. He muffed it. If you can agree with that, maybe we have a place to start talking. And oh, also, don't start on the there were no WMD's in Iraq. That's a fallacy also. What is true is that there were no WMD's FOUND which is not the same thing as there were no WMD's. Just logic that's all. You can say because we found none, there may have been none, but you can not say there were none.

                  I used to be a Dem, but then came along Jimmie and then Bill (and room mate) and I opted out of the party. You guys talk about Bush and the Republicans as if they were a bigger disgrace than those two ex presidents, goodness gracious that is a very selective historical perspecitive.

                  • Posted By: madest @ 11/21/2007 8:35:10 AM

                    No. I do not agree with you. It's not OK for a president to lie. Especially to a grand jury. But as a realist I understand that the president Is merely human. To hold such great animosity toward a president who lied about his sex life yet give a pass to a president who lied about the reasons for war puts every word you write into question. I doubt you were ever a democrat. I would bet you're a liar. PS: the word is 'perjury'

                    • Posted By: tiredofpoliticsasusualbydems @ 11/21/2007 11:24:05 AM

                      Yes, I was, and could be again, if the Dems would speak to me about qualifications and policies. What are Hillary's specific qualifications that make her a better candidate than anyone else? The issues I think that will be forefront in 2008 are (not in any particular order) the Iraq War, Illiegal Immigration, Taxation and Health Care. Yes there are others, but if you want to start with those then we can add as we deal with them.

                      I wonder if it makes you feel better to call me a liar? Not sure what that adds to the political dialog. Can you stick with qualifications and issues? Or is it easier for you to continuously restate your position and then defend it by personal attacks on either those participants with whom you disagree, or with political commentators with whom you disagree? Do you want to start? Which issue, qualification?

      • Posted By: madest @ 11/20/2007 4:41:30 PM

        He wasn't caught breaking any laws. You should know the difference.

    • Posted By: madest @ 11/20/2007 3:23:20 PM

      You and every sane person on the Planet.

  • Posted By: perceptive @ 11/21/2007 11:21:37 AM

    Frog march him to G'tmo as an enemy combatant, don't let him publish this sexism veiled with lies.

  • Posted By: tiredofpoliticsasusualbydems @ 11/20/2007 12:46:31 PM

    whatever happened to "I may disagree with what you say but will defend to death your right to say it."? Why do Dems go off the deep end, even drop any pretense of right to free speech, when someone ever so slightly points out that their Emeror(ress) may not have any clothes!!!!! Why are the Dems participating in this blog so vitriolic? What happened to enlightened discourse? Can it be that you are still not over the 2000 election? Can it be that you do really think you have a god given right to govern? Beats the heck out of me.

    A few days ago Frank Rich of the NYT published an article loaded with innuendo, etc. on Kerick, and thus by association Rudy. Where is the hue and cry that the NYT should stop publishing Rich's articles? Doesn't happen. How can it be that those who say they uphold the right to free speech, are the first to toss it out the window when someone says something they don't like? Are they that afraid that Hillary will not (can not) win?

    • Posted By: bobojo @ 11/20/2007 5:02:38 PM

      Dems vitriolic? You mean like Fox news? O Lie-lly, Coulter? The list is never ending.

      • Posted By: tiredofpoliticsasusualbydems @ 11/20/2007 7:41:04 PM

        Go back and read the postngs by Hill's supporters, and see what you think! Sure there is a right to cancel a subscription, but to say that Newsweek doesn't have the right to publish........ does sound both anti-free speech as well as a bit of vitriol.

        So Rove figured out how to win elections--and no one else in the history of the US played games to win an election? Give me a very large break. Is there any truth to the claims coming forth that Hill's has great dirt on HBO? If she does do you suppose she got it from the tooth fairy?

        And what ever happened to all those women who Bill dallied with? What threat were made against them? Is it coincidence that they have shrunk from the scene? Me da un break por favor.

        Let's talk issues, calmly, and disagree agreeably, huh?

        • Posted By: madest @ 11/21/2007 8:37:32 AM

          HBO? Home Box Office? Forget talking calmly and disagreeing agreeably, try writing in English.

          • Posted By: tiredofpoliticsasusualbydems @ 11/21/2007 11:12:53 AM

            You do have a problem being civil and using a bit of thought on obvious typos, don't you? Why the agita? I haven't done anything to you. Can you not discuss without resorting to AH attacks? What about qualifications and policies?

    • Posted By: ArcherB @ 11/20/2007 2:35:04 PM

      I agree with you here. I find it sad that there are people who call this administration fascists, and then use brownshirt tactics to silence those with views that are different than their own.

      • Posted By: madest @ 11/20/2007 5:32:26 PM

        No ones is calling them fascists. They're calling them criminals.

    • Posted By: bobojo @ 11/20/2007 4:52:40 PM

      LOL. Is this free speech retrard? I think I am paying for Roves speech with my subsccription. OR was until today. I dont support a felon being paid by my money to say what he wants.
      Thats why I didnt buy OJs book. I hear newsweek is giving OJ a column also.

    • Posted By: cmicah6:8 @ 11/20/2007 3:16:19 PM

      Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black? Dems can scream and yell and lie while the poor Repubs rationally speak the truth?

  • Posted By: hnugget @ 11/21/2007 10:33:24 AM

    Newsweek has joind forces with Hannity and Limbaugh by adding Rove to their editirial staff.Yes, other opinions are needed but I thought we had gotten rid of the truly nasty and devious slime of Karl Rove. How naive I was. He has pretty much succeeded in dividing our country along with the above named. Where is Daniel Webster when we need him. Does the Union stand "Rock ribbed and copper sheathed"?

  • Posted By: BettySkeddi @ 11/21/2007 7:10:29 AM

    The people want a president who has Democratic qualities. This story, though not as good as I expected, does speak some truth. People are getting frusted with Bush and his ways and are screaming for change. If you don't believe me go ahead and check out his popularity right now. Clinton, who most likely won't win, will make an impact. Mark my works...

  • Posted By: Sylly Sock @ 11/21/2007 3:57:10 AM

    Mr Rove - I'm sorry to tell you - I so looked forward to your incite on the Bawdy Politic - but clearly you blundered in taking early retirement from your previous job as President's brain cell: you may well bloom in election circles but you stink at writing. Have you considered getting a ghost?

  • Posted By: Chris Black @ 11/21/2007 1:43:31 AM

    The Republican candidate need not posess any of the qualities you list here. They can be applied as a veneer to any intellectual lightweight who can be manipulated by ego stroking. Maybe you should use a little botox on the next one, though, to control the facial twitches that occur as he issues his daily perjuries.

  • Posted By: Chris Black @ 11/21/2007 1:41:52 AM

    The Republican candidate need not posess any of the qualities you list here. They can be applied as a veneer to any intellectual lightweight who can be manipulated by ego stroking. Maybe you should use a little botox on the next one, though, to control the facial twitches that occur as he issues his daily perjuries.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse