Despite the temptation to do otherwise, I’m going to resist editorializing on this thread. Last night on Hardball, Republican strategist, Ed Rogers, stated that there were people, including former ambassador Joe Wilson, who should apologize to Karl Rove. I am leaving this thread open for debate to accommodate those with strong opinions or who answered the poll questions with “other.”



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13840941/

Questions for Debate:

Who, if anyone, owes Karl Rove an apology?

Was Ed Rogers serious or was this just overblown rhetoric?

No and no are my responses to the polls. If Karl Rove had acted like a good little Boy Scout or even a man with scruples, he wouldn't have accumulated for himself so many political enemies. Ask just about anyone against whom one of his boys (particularly George Dubya Bush) ran. I remember the dirty tricks in South Carolina that were used against Senator McCain, even though he doesn't seem to anymore.

That brings to mind part of a Bible verse: "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Karl Rove. If he got off because he was not guilty in the Valerie Plame outing, fine. If he got off otherwise, I'd really rather not know right now. My blood pressure is high enough.

To answer your questions:

Nobody, to my knowledge, owes Karl Rove an apology, and who cares what Ed Rogers thinks?

Who, if anyone, owes Karl Rove an apology?

I believe Joe Wilson should apologize.

Wilson: Karl Rove should be “frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs”.

Novak has said that Karl Rove was not his original source for Valerie Plame's name. Novak has not revealed who that source was but has said it was not a "political gunslinger".

Novak has said that his sources have not been indicted, so it wasn't Libby either: My role in the Plame leak probe





Meanwhile, the Wilsons simply can't let this go. Valerie Wilson has filed a lawsuit against Rove, Libby, Cheny, and 10 John Does: link. I'm not sure which "civil rights" have been violated here, but this is America where you can sue anybody, I guess.

So, the as yet unnamed source is a senior Bush Administration official who is not a "political gunslinger." What does this have to do with an apology to Rove. Novak went to Rove for confirmation.



Even Libby has not been indicted for revealing Plame's identity. He's only been indicted for lying to the FBI and the grand jury.

Rove was also one of Cooper's sources. According to reports of Cooper's grand jury testimony regarding his conversations with Rove, Rove apparently told Cooper, "I've already said too much."

And, according to Novak, Rove - in response to Novak's inquiry - told him, "Oh, you know that, too."

Even if Rove didn't know Plame was an undercover agent, he should've (and may have) known better than to confirm her identity as a CIA employee without finding out more information. He seems to have had some idea that what he was saying might not be good to print.

And Rove is not entirely off the hook. He has only been told that "absent any further developments" he is not expected to be charged. This does not mean he won't be charged.

No one owes Rove an apology. Wilson and Plame were the victims of the type of character assassination which has proven to be typical of Republican politicians in recent years. If there are apologies owed, it is to the Wilsons and to the many other good people this administration has slung mud at over the years.



And why should they? Two careers ruined, and for what? For telling the truth when what the administration wanted was lies? You're sent somewhere to find the truth. You do what you are supposed to, and in return, you and your wife are smeared, your careers destroyed. Would you let that go? Or would you seek justice? I know what I would do.

Was Ed Rogers serious or was this just overblown rhetoric?

I’ll answer the second question first.

Of the Republican strategists circulating on the air waves like deadly viruses, the two that annoy me most are Jack Burkman and Ed Rogers. My first thought, on hearing Rogers’ remarks about an apology to Rove, was that the state mental authorities needed to drop everything and rush to the Hardball set equipped with a net.

On second thought, I determined that this was just overblown rhetoric designed to create a wave of sympathy for poor little old Karl Rove.

Who, if anyone, owes Karl Rove an apology?



Like hell he should. A “perp walk” for Rove is a pleasant idea. Too bad it didn’t happen.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

Indeed Amlord, would you apologize to someone who declared open season on your wife?

Note: The first few voters did not get to vote on question one. Through either mechanical malfunction or pilot error, the first question was not posted until later.

I think the opposite it true- Rove DOES need to be "frog walked out of the white house in cuffs"- he got off because he is the presidents boy- pure and simple. Gross miscariage of justice seems to be the business of the day with this admin- Ken Lay never spent a day in jail, and he practically bankrolled this administration. Karl Rove was able to do some legal gymnastics that has been the hallmark of this administration to violate rights, destroy due process for enemies, character assasinations etc.

It is a good thing that Valerie Plame is initiating a lawsuit- I wish more poeple would, though I know it is an uphill batle when you have the kind of power that Rove and co wield, and the ability they have to make every day of your life miserable.

Who, if anyone, owes Karl Rove an apology?

A clear, emphatic "NO ONE!" was my first thought when I saw this thread, and so I delayed even reading it. I mean, if the admins don't like one liners, a one word response has to really be frowned on...

Then, I spent a couple hours playing cards with some friends. They are foster parents, and have adopted some of their foster children. They were discussing some of the reasons that certain children seem to be totally amoral and detached. It seems that it is really necessary for children to bond with one or both of their parents within a very few weeks of birth. If a child fails to bond, I learned, that child never becomes capable of feeling certain losses or developing a sense of right and wrong. (conscience) As I listened to them, I began to realize that perhaps Karl Rove is the way he is because his parents failed to spend time with him as an infant. If so, perhaps his parents owe him an apology, but would he care if they did apologize?

So beyond merely insulting Rove via ad hominem, you've stooped to speculating that his parents didn't love him. How very generous of you to allow that it isn't his fault at all. It could have been a simple case of the sins of the father...



Well, let's throw due process out, who needs it anyway? Being "Cheney's boy" didn't save Scooter Libby from indictment and doesn't evil Dick run this administration?

And what the heck does Ken Lay have to do with anything? Let's leave out the fact that Ken Lay's crimes occurred under the last President and were prosecuted under the Feds under this administration. It is spurious to claim otherwise.

Can we please stick to the facts here? Rove was not indicted and, in all likelihood, will never be indicted over the "Plame affair". This is not due to any political connections or the unwillingness of the federal prosecutors (namely Fitzgerald), but due to the lack of evidence to convict the guy.

After two years of investigation, the case cannot be made against Rove. Anyone who publicly and loudly said that Rove should be "frog marched" should apologize, or sue for civil damages, I guess.

Joe Wilson himself should simply be quiet. He has misrepresented his findings and the outcome that the CIA derived from his visit on almost every occasion.



The British stand by their original claim, as re-affirmed by the Butler Report.


Of course, ad hominems are much easier to use than anything so onerous as evidence or sources.

So let me get this straight- you actually believe that the letter shown as the officiall letter from Nigeria looked even remotely real- and didn't even have the right ministers name on the form?

You DO recieve those nice spam e-mails from Nigeria yourself don't you "My cousin the minister left a hundred gazzillion bazillion dollars in a bank, and if you just give me your account number..."

I mentioned Ken Lay, because he was a personal and close friend of GW, and avoided any jail time at all, despite being one of the largest thieves in world history.

Okay- based on your argument Amlord- do you think OJ did it? I mean, he was found "not guilty" by your very standards- so that means he is "not guilty" correct? You believe OJ is "not guilty"?

Fitzgerald knows that it is very, very hard to take someone like Rove down, and you have to have evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you can't get OJ convicted with DNA evidence- how are you going to take down the most powerful man in America (since he clearly pulls GWs strings) ? How clear and convincing does the evidence have to be, even if you, as the prosecutor, is convinced of the bad guys guilt- but, due to the rules of engagement - you are not sure of a "slam dunk" case- do you go up against someone like Rove without a "slam dunk"?

Actually, I tried to be light hearted and not express my true feelings about Karl Rove.


My debate experience prior to AD was a 22 year fight with my first wife, and the discussions held over lunch at 4:00 AM in a factory... I am neither a former team member of a college debate squad, nor a student of Latin.

I tried to look up Ad Hominem, and learned that there were twenty listings for it on eBay, not to mention the links to Ad Hominem ringtones…

Other sources defined it as a sometimes fallacious argument based upon an attack on the person.


The question itself infers that nobody owes him an apology. Perhaps then, the thread itself is “an attack on the person.”

I was responding to this thread because someone told me that I really needed to get in and express my opinion of Karl Rove. I must admit that in the past decade or so, I have heard Karl Rove described by his friends as “Turd Blossom” and by his foes as “Bush’s Brain.” My general impression of him is that he decided that his place in American history was to be a king maker, and he made a profitable career for himself by operating the cement mixer that mixed the muck and the whiskey that made the mud that was slung from the campaigns that he managed. He appears to have created a President out of an incompetent businessman. He is part of an administration that prides itself on being at war…

Perhaps somewhere, someone has documented all of the time that he has contributed to public service, all of the things that he has done to make other people’s lives easier, etc. Overwhelmingly though, what I have heard of Karl Rove are descriptions of a man who became a legend in his own mind. His actions, as they have been described to me have been amoral, aimed solely at political power.

If you are aware of any good that this man has done, or of any attacks that have been made on him in the past that did not have some basis in fact, then put forth your arguments that someone owes him an apology.

There is a premise that everyone is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Where Karl Rove is concerned though; if I were called for Jury Duty, I would have to be asked to be excused, because I have heard so much negative pre-trial publicity about the man that I could not render a fair verdict.

Your above statement Amlord, fails to consider that it was Karl Rove who started this war of words.

I will repeat Rove’s statement to Chris Matthews about Wilson’s wife being "fair game" - sort of reminds one of Dick Cheney's favorite sport, quail hunting - which you conveniently glossed over in your rush to accuse Curmudgon and CruisingRam of ad hominem attacks on poor Rove.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

If Rove had declared open season on a man's wife in a Texas bar, (even one of those “high falutin’“ joints atop some prosperous bank) it’s likely someone would have, quite literally, beaten the holy crap out of him - rough justice, eh.

Edited to add:

I have never been a participant in and I am not an advocate of rough-house, do-it-yourself justice. Rather, I am a passive, skeptical, perhaps cynical, observer of events in Texas, much in the tradition of the old donkey, Benjamin, in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

Rove’s “fair game” remark was, at best coarse or crude. Who can count the number of people ending up in emergency rooms or morgues in Texas and elsewhere, for making milder statements than "fair game" about someone’s wife, mother, etc.

For this reason, I don’t think Joe Wilson owes Karl Rove anything.

I would suggest, rather strongly, that Karl Rove owes Joe Wilson and his wife an apology.



Of course, it is easier to hide behind the empty, pretentious, self-congratulatory righteous indignation of accusing others of of ad hominem attacks than it is to dispute the fact that Rove insulted Valerie Plame by calling her "fair game."

Perhaps I will surprise many people here, but I would have to say that anybody who made a public statement about the criminal guilt of someone before a formal trial is concluded needs to apologize. It doesn't matter who the person might be.



I can believe what I like, of course. But it would be inappropriate for me to issue a public statement about the guilt of O. J. Simpson either before a trial, or after he had been found not guilty. It doesn't matter what I think about O. J. Simpson or Karl Rove. I must respect the decisions of the legal system when it comes to guilt or innocence.

I don't want to remove Karl Rove for any illegal act. I want to remove him because he is absolutely superb at his job. More than any other human being, he is responsible for the Frankenstein monster that is the modern conservative wing of the Republican Party, that shambling creature made up of clumsily sewn together body parts from Neoconservatives, Fundamentalists, and Corporationists.

Even Doctor Frankenstein shouldn't suffer from false accusations.

Exactly!!

The "Wilson's wife is fair game" quote comes from Chris Matthews: not exactly the most neutral party. Hardball has been a constant drum beat against Rove for a very long time. The "fair game" comment is entirely hearsay, so everyone is free to believe what they want.

Who, if anyone, owes Karl Rove an apology?

Perhaps... if we are to believe the latest development Rove was a B Grade rat, confirming but not the source of the story. This whole story seems to shift every 6 months. I doubt we have heard the whole truth by any stretch of the imagination.

Was Ed Rogers serious or was this just overblown rhetoric?

It's Ed's job to sell the spin, but one wonders if he laughed when he first read this script. If anything Rove and his little turd-blossom buddies need a heavy dose of their own medicine.

As another poster noted getting a conviction in this type of charge is difficult at best. I only hope Ms. Plame’s lawsuit manages to put the pinch on these knaves.

Regardless amlord- you sidestepped the question- so does the prosecutors office owe OJ an apology- after all- he is "not guilty"- ?

Do you believe justice was served with OJ? Do you believe he should have gone to jail? Do you think most poeple can look at the evidence and understand that his big bux got him out of jail- NOT the fact that he was actually not guilty?

I see great parallels between the OJ case and Rove- they both are guilty as heck, both got off scott free due to money and power, and now are being sued in civil court.

Thanks Amlord,

This is without a doubt the weakest of your 3096 posts on this board.

I’ll stick by the crediblity of the Chris Matthews quote. I don’t remember Karl Rove denying that he said this to Matthews. As any number of threads on this board illustrate, the best argument, when you don’t have an argument, is to blame the messenger. Remember Craig Crawford?

No, you didn't come right out and call Matthews a liar, you were more subtle than that. You implied as much though, and in my book that's the same kind of ad hominem attack you damned Rove's critics for using. But, then that seems to be par for the course. The media, as a whole and as individuals, is victim of an ongoing stream of such attacks from the Republican right.

I know that a large amount of disgust and revulsion I feel for modern day conservatives comes from the hypocrisy of thier outrage at Bill Clinton. Just about any wacky nut job conspiracy theory that comes into my inbox about Clinton is immediately taken as Gospel, but the the bar for what is wrongdoing and unethical in the GW administration is set so high that no conservative dare consider a good, sweeping investigation against these monsters.

If GW's administration is accused of some kind of wrongdoing, it is difficult to even get a decent investigation- but they spent over 88million dollars on a fishing trip over a failed trailer park investment on clinton, and ended up with some illicit sex in the white house. Big flipping deal- wasn't like he was starting wars that killed thousands of US servicement or anything.

I mean, if conservatives are so against unethical behavior and immorality, you would think they would be screaming to high heaven about this guy.

The ability to let Rove off the hook without even a wimper is just plain wierd and hypocritical.

As I said, you can believe what you want. As a regular Hardball watcher, I have been astounded over the past two years on how often the name "Karl Rove" comes up on that show. Matthews' hate for him is palpable.

This is not an ad hominem attack on Matthews, it is an observation. I did not say Matthews was wrong: perhaps his disdain stems from this "fair game" comment he claims Rove made to him rather than pre-dating it. I simply don't know. However, the enormous amount of time Hardball has spent on Rove is amazing.



Reality check time:

Are you saying Fitzgerald did not do a "decent" job?

Which is it then? Is it a difficult accusation to prove or was the investigation just glossed over?

You still haven't answered my question .

I think Fitzgerald did the best he could with how difficult to prosecute a case like this is- once again, the case has to have a slam dunk- there is no option for losing, and even if he thought a 75-25 chance of victory- it is not enough against as powerful as figure as Rove, especially one with so many resources for harm to others as Rove has shown to use

But still, you don't answer the question, over and over again you sidestep it- do you think OJ is due an apology? Same level of burden of proof in your estimation, correct?


If Rove is owed an Apology, so is OJ, so is Stalin, so is Hitler- after all, the last two were never indicted or charged with anything, correct? If you standard of proof for Rove is at "X" level for Rove- it is it at "X" level for OJ and other unconvicted criminals?

Will you or can you even answer this question?

It is the same hypocrisy from the right, over and over, on this kind of issue. It is all about "character"- until thier side is shown to have none.

I take it you are okay with situational ethics?

What on God's green earth does OJ have to do with this? OJ was clearly involved in what happened to Nicole Brown and the jury could not decide the question beyond a reasonable doubt. But he was charged, as he should have been.

Now, had someone (let's say, Nicole Brown's parents) said that Mark Furman should be frog marched out for his utter stupidity or complicity, then they should apologize (in my opinion).

The difference here is that Rove wasn't even charged, let alone found not guilty.



Now you've stepped off the deep end. Did Rove kill anyone? Systematically murder millions of people?

Put aside your blind hatred of this man. It is really clouding your judgement of the situation.

I have said Rove deserves an apology from Wilson because the prosecutor has said there is no evidence that the law has been broken. He didn't say that he was afraid to prosecute it. Clearly Fitzgerald is not afraid to prosecute the powerful. He said there was no evidence.

You can either believe the guy investigating this or your own predetermined conclusion. The burden is on you to make the logical decision on who to believe.

I saw the interview with Novak by Russert last night on a repeat of Meet the Press. Boy that guy comes off scummy and as a liar.

First he tells Russert on a previous show that his source DEFINATELY gave Novak the name of Wilson's wife. Now Novak is claiming that he found her in Who's Who in America?? ARE YOU SERIOUS? What a damn liar. Would you forget that you worked so hard to find out who his wife was??

Or more likely did you LATER find out that she is mentioned in a book and then to cover your tracks you recant what REALLY happened?

It's VERY obvious that this White House was out to get Wilson. Look at Cheney's notes in the article, he was trying to find dirt immediately, he didn't care if Wilson was correct or not, he wanted to discredit Wilson with personal attacks.

Why won't the Wilson's let this go? If this happened to you, would you let them get away with it??

Do you have a source for this assertion? Novak has repeated the "Who's Who" thing since he's written about it.

There are transcripts available of the show.

Here is the transcript for Oct. 5, 2003:

Novak on Meet the Press, Oct. 2003

In that interview he says:



You will find no mention of Who's Who in America in that interview. You'd think that if this were true, he would've mentioned it before and not said very clearly that the name was given to him by his source both in this interview and in an interview with Newsday (he clarifies in this Meet the Press interview what he meant to say in the Newsday interview)... now he's saying he found the name in Who's Who in America – something he never mentioned in the earlier interviews.

Because it is all very germane to the subject Amlord- you say Stalin killed millions of poeple? Why would you say such a thing? He was never CHARGED with a crime, after all, never convicted in a court of law, never had his day of court- so I guess all historians should owe Stalin an apology- because, after all, by your burden of proof- he didn't do it.

You won't answer the question- because it exposes the basic hypocrisy of the assumption that ANYONE owes a very, very evil man, that just happened to get away with a form of treason- an apology.

In fact- Stalin was never and probably could have never been charged with breaking a Russian law- even if the power was there to do it- because he

1) Didn't actually do the killing himself
2) Fell under the blanket Russian constitutional loophole of "enemy of the state" that had been in that culture since the Czars.

So, since Stalin broke no Russian law, and killed no one (at least we dont' have any direct evidence of it) directly- is he owed an apology?

If no- why not? I mean, the burden of proof you are giving to Rove could be applied to Stalin and we could make the same argument for Stalin

I like the OJ analogy more- because I see this in court cases all the time- we know the guy did it. Do we have enough to charge him though?

We have let bad guys go many times without charges because we simply don't have the evidence-serial killers are only charged with say, six murders, because the state only has the evidence for six murders, not the 12 we know he committed.

I have no doubt in my mind that Karl Rove had something to do with the outing of a CIA agent- I think it is just plain silly to think that libby and cheney acted on thier own. It, like any criminal, fits a pattern of Karl Rove dating back to his early career. Karl Rove engineered the push poll that smeared John McCain in South Carolina- and he got away with it. He organized the Swift boat liars , and he got away with it, smear after smear, he has been untouchable- like a serial killer that gets away with it time after time, he gets more and more bold, and a little more sloppy, and at some point, arrested, yet let go, because of lack of evidence.

The cops knew John Wayne Gacy was guilty. JW Gacy toyed with the cops, he knew the law, he knew how to hide the evidence - but he got sloppy, invited the cops inside, and when the heater kicked on, the bodies smell was there- but still, it was some time after words before he was finally arrested and brought ot justice.

Here now, we have a guy that will commit treason to smear his enemies, there is no boundries, a sociopathic lack of remorse or any ability to feel he is doing wrong at any time- and the power to hide the evidence.

Ya, Fitzgerald had a very tough job, and worse, he doesn't have a congress behind him that will allow him to really investigate the guy, I mean REALLY investigate anything and everything Karl Rove and GW back 20 years like Ken Starr was allowed to do- we would have a time when Karl Rove would indeed be "frog walked"- and this comes back full circle- anyone conservative that was okay with the persecution of Clinton pretty much owes EVERYONE an apology for NOT demanding the same for GW, Karl Rove, and company.

If they were so inclined to, the parents of Karl Rove might have much to apologize for.

In December 1969, Rove's father left the family, and divorced Rove's mother soon afterward. After his parents' separation, Rove learned from his aunt and uncle that the man who had raised him was not his biological father; both he and an older brother were the children of another man. Rove has expressed great love and admiration for his adoptive father and for "how selfless" his love had been.

Rove's mother committed suicide in Reno, Nevada, in 1981, when Rove was 30 years old. He did not meet his biological father until he was in his 40s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove

Sounds like a real homey group of folks.

Nobody owes Karl Rove an apology. For what? Because Joe Wilson suggested he should be "frog-marched out of the White House in cuffs?" That's IT? My, how sensitive and touchy we are these days.

Rove didn't create nasty, hardball politicking. He just took it to new heights (or is that depths?). If he's so offended by Wilson's remarks, let him sue for slander. It's the American way.

For the sake of argument let's agree that Karl Rove is owed an apology from Joe Wilson.

Then, on the other hand...

Shouldn't Karl Rove apologize to former Texas governor Ann Richards for conducting push-polling that asked perspective voters if they would be "more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if [they] knew her staff is dominated by lesbians."

Shouldn't Karl Rove apologize to Senator John McCain for the push poll during the hotly contested primary in South Carolina that asked "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?"

Shouldn't Karl Rove apologize to every liberal in America for his remark, "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

Shouldn't Karl Rove apologize to Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill) for his remarks, "Has there ever been a more revealing moment this year? Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

Shouldn't Karl Rove (who avoided military service) apologize to decorated war veterans Representative John Murtha and Senator John Kerry for his remarks, that they were "ready to give the green light to go to war, but when it gets tough, and when it gets difficult, they fall back on that party's old pattern of cutting and running."

Maybe Karl Rove is owed an apology. But only if he issues a bunch of apologies first.

The first two items on the list are things that Rove was accused of having been involved in, but unless you have something solid demonstrating that he actually was, then they're off the board. Perhaps even those who accuse him of being involved might owe him an apology.

As for the other three, I don't think he owes anyone an apology for them. The one about liberals and 9/11 is certainly no more out-of-bounds than the quote by you (assuming you've been quoted accurately) about conservatives and Coretta Scott King, posted by CruisingRam at the bottom of his signature line immediately above your post. And in either event, they're not in any way analogous to saying that a person should be frog-marched out in cuffs.

I'm not going to get into a tedious and pointless parsing of words with you Blackstone. You can accept or reject my statements about Rove owing a few apologies himself. I neither have to justify nor defend them to an extent that will satisfy you (because I know nothing will satisfy you).

As for my remarks about conservatives and Coretta Scott King, if you want to know if they are accurate or not, I've got three words for you: Do the Research. Of course you DO know that I am not a public figure and the remarks I make about a political pimp like Rove are germane to the topic and remarks I've made in entirely unrelated forums are not?

The democrat party members owe Rove an apology along with their allies in the press. They tried and convicted Rove before the facts were even known.

Why? Partisan politics, as usual.

Novak said it perfectly in his recent column. There was no underlying crime and his reporting, his ACCURATE reporting of Joe Wilson's lie about why he was sent to Niger (not by Cheney as he claimed but by Clintoista partisans like his wife Plame) which was corroborated by the US Congress which investigated this matter.

This is another non scandal that was manufactured by Wilson and his less-than-secret wife who is so concerned about her anonymous status that she posed for a series of pictures in "Vanity Fair" magazine. At least she picked the correct rag mag since "vanity" seems to be the most conspicuous characteristic of Mr. and Mrs. Plame.

Thanks, I think I'll go with "reject". Apart from the two at the top which have only been linked to him by innuendo, the statements were quite on point, and well within the realm of political debate. They just make a few people uncomfortable, that's all.


Thanks again for the offer. So what this boils down to is that you've found an excuse to hold yourself to a lower standard than Rove. And yes, it is quite germane to the topic to see just how consistently you apply the "standards" you've set forth.

Here's a link to Rove's use of push polling.



http://www.webdelsol.com/The_Potomac/politics-rove.htm

Love it or leave it Blackstone.

Your link is to a web-based literary publication that also likes to comment on politics. Internet searches on all the political editors who were listed on that site turn up no references at all for their credentials as reporters. This is hardly an original source of information. They were just repeating allegations that have been made elsewhere, allegations which Rove himself has denied; and even McCain's campaign manager has said he had no idea who was behind the slanderous push-poll.

My answer to Karl Rove's denial would be Cui Bono?--just who stood to benefit from the slander? Rove takes the credit for Bush's victories, should he also not bear responsibility for the way those victories came about? Or is he just a humble, honest soul?

For all I know, McCain could have gotten a windfall from it if it came across as obvious to the callee that this was a naked attempt at slander. We don't even know how many people were called with this "question", let alone how it affected McCain's poll numbers.

It wasn't just telephone calls. There were flyers left under the windshield wiper blades of cars parked in church parking lots during Sunday service that contained this poisonous garbage in printed form. It was a concerted effort on someone's part, and that someone clearly did not want McCain to win.

Of course, if this were done by a professional, he would cover his tracks.

You're going to need plenty more evidence than that if you want to pin this on Rove. This could literally have been anyone, including a McCain supporter who wanted to make his opponents look bad.

One could argue that it didn't rain even though everything outside the house is wet. Doesn't make it so. Just because you can't find the fingerprints of Karl Rove on the 2000 South Carolina smear campaign doesn't mean someone wanting to hurt John McCain and help George Bush didn't do the push polling.

Having run Senator John McCain's campaign for president, I can recount a textbook example of a smear made against McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 presidential primary. We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity.
In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear.

It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

link

One more source:

In 2000, McCain had George W. on the ropes and South Carolina was the do-or-die state. Flyers appeared from thin air alleging that McCain had a black child (he and his wife had adopted a Bangladeshi daughter from an orphanage there). Other fliers said McCain was the "fag candidate." Rumors swirled that McCain’s time in a North Vietnamese prison camp had left him unstable and downright crazy - again, hitting at the opponent's greatest strength. Other rumors were that his wife was a drug addict. Nice stuff, and none of it had Bush’s inky fingerprints on it.

link 2

Which brings us to the one thing you have to know what makes Karl Rove so good at what he does. He knows how to take your strength and make it look like a weakness. In 2000 it was to use the compassion of the McCains to suggest the good senator had fathered a black child. In 2004 it was to swift boat the service record of John Kerry. In either case can any evidence be produced that leads back to Rove, and by extension back to Bush?

No. There are no cancelled checks. No records of late night phone calls. No incriminating e-mails or photographs. That's not Rove works. He always allows himself plausible deniability. "Gee, that's a terrible thing to say about Senator McCain" or "You knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, too? My-oh-my."

But you have to be pretty naive, blindly partisan or flat-out stupid not to notice how Rove always seems to be hanging around on the fringes by some weird coincidence. Some other mysterious individual or group of individuals always seem to take up the task of sticking it to George Bush's political opponents and enemies. Bush benefits but you can't blame it on Karl Rove. Just like Bart Simpson, "Nobody saw me do it" is how Rove explains these bizarre acts away.

Yep, danged funny how that always seems to happen. Trees fall on top of folks but you never see anyone chopping them down. Just bad luck, acts of God or some unexplained natural phenomenon I'd reckon.

Once upon a time, reactionary forces would burn books that advocated ideas they didn't like. Eventually, it became more prudent and equally as effective to remove the books instead, thus accomplishing the same end. When surrogates are willing to do the dirty work as Richard Nixon employed Donald Segretti to conduct, the main campaign can destroy their enemies without being directly linked to the destruction. It would seem we've all learned the lessons of Watergate well.

Cui Bono, indeed Paladin Elspeth.

You're not really that naive are you? Since Watergate, the Republican tricksters are pretty infamous. Lets not forget the smear job on Max Cleland either.

The lesson learned from Watergate is not that it was wrong or not to do it, it was don't get caught.

Once again, conspiracy theories and rumours substitute for facts.

Sure Rove didn't want McCain to win. What's the revelation in that? And politics at the local level sometimes gets ugly. We have dead people and felons voting for democrats in inner cities. We have crack being handed out to potential voters in Ohio in exchange for democrat votes. We have tires being slashed in Wisconsin to prevent GOP workers from going to the polls. The difference in the smear campaign against Rove and the incidents that I just cited? Proof. Every single case I cited was investigated and proven using the legal system.

Milwaukee voter fraud
Crack for votes
Democrat tire slashing

The smear campaign against Rove was bogus and slanderous, just like the slander that was heaped upon as a result of the manufactured "scandal" involving liberal political activists Valerie Plame and Joe Plame-Wilson. The bottom line is that Wilson lied about his "mission" to Niger when he told the press that "Cheney" had sent him. He didn't. His wife arranged it.

Plame and Wilson

You mentioned Swift Boats? Well, there was a bit of fact in those charges as well. We had John Kerry's entire Vietnam chain of command banding together to declare he was "unfit for duty" while a few of his underling shipmates, while being carted around the country and wined and dined on the campaign's dime, were the minority of his nam colleagues who testified to his "fitness".

Swift Boat Vets

Facts are stubborn things as a great president once noted. Innuendo, rumor, and slander are the politics of personal destruction. That seems to be the modus operandi of the party who still can't win national elections with actual votes.

Glass houses, LordHelmet...


Can we not rehash the same old talking points that have been debunked several times? Wilson never said Cheney sent him. Here's what he said: (link)



And its the calling card for the party who is currently in power. Rove is like Dennis Rodman. You hate him with every shred of venom you can muster, unless he's on your team. Let's be perfectly honest here. Both sides are capable of this tripe, and they've proven it. Don't try and claim the high ground on this one, it doesn't exist for either party.

Onto the questions...

No, Rove isn't owed an apology, and he knows it. He's part of the game and he knows that these accusations are part of it. Its a symptom of the sad state of affairs in Washington from both sides of the aisle. And, as others have pointed out, his karma meter likely has a negative balance so he has awhile to go before trying to cash anything in.

This is overblown rhetoric, pure and simple. You also notice only the talking heads are asking for stuff like this. Why? Just because you dodged an indictment on this issue doesn't mean you want an elevated amount of sunlight glaring down walking into a key election season. All it takes is one mishap for all of the accusations leveled at Rove to be judged true in the court of public opinion.

I couldn't help but notice that in that entire post, you provide no evidence at all that McCain was actually hurt politically by the push-polls and the flyers. That would kinda be necessary in order to answer your Latin question.

"Anatomy of a smear", indeed.



This is what passes for evidence around here? God help me if you're ever on my jury.



Then I'll say it: Conspiracy theories and rumors have been substituting for facts here on this thread. Feel free to use the "glass houses" line on me, if you can back it up.

Um- some things are so obvious you don't need more evidence than what is in front of your face- McCain didn't win South Carolina- and he clearly had the momentum going in- it wasn't until this push poll that he lost that momentum. Not a leap here Blackstone. And once again- it is this uber-high threshold of guilt that conservatives assign thier guy that is so silly- this stuff isn't conspiracy theory stuff- it is obvious to all but the Bushite fans. And even that base is shrinking!

So what IS your threshold of evidence- and is it applied evenly? For instance- if you believe none of the wrong doing of the GW admin- do you believe any of the purported wrong doing of the Clinton administration?

To me- there was one glaring difference- congress spent 88 million dollars investigated every single hint of wrongdoing- even if it had absolutely nothing to do with the original cause of the investigation- and found a big fat 0 except for some consensual sex in the white house- yet, no similar investigations for GW and co- that is what bothers me- that all these things aren't being investigated. So your burden of proof will never be met, because the republican congress is not as moral as they cast themselves to be- who knew?

Y'know, I couldn't help but notice, that's three of your worst habits on display. First, you quote an entire post without bothering to refute any of it. You just blithely dismiss that McCain was damaged by the push-polls and flyers. Duh. He LOST the primary. Isn't that damage enough or are you rewriting history too?

Second, do you bother to offer a counter-argument to what occurred in the 2000 South Carolina primary? No, you just pooh-pooh the possibility of Karl Rove being involved and instead offer the novel, if extremely Machiavellian notion that a McCain supporter actually conducted the negative campaigning to drum up sympathy for the candidate or something equally half-baked. That notion, supported by...well, NOTHING actually, is a fanciful fantasy, but without a shred of grounding in the real world.

Third, you constantly refer to posters (specifically those advancing a view counter to yours) in the 2nd person (you, your, yours) instead of our given board names. At first, I thought it was just an oversight, but over time it appears your preferences to the personal pronoun is instead a deliberate tactical way of indicating your lack of regard and respect for those you disagree with.

That's fine by me. Maybe that's just the way you roll. But since others have made the case that John McCain WAS harmed by unknown persons involved in the 2000 South Carolina smear campaign and you've dismissed ALL of it as just "conspiracy theories and rumors," please allow me ask you a simple question.

Where is your proof that Senator McCain wasn't harmed by the dirty tricks used against him in South Carolina and there was no involvement linking back to Karl Rove? It's dead easy to say, "It's all hogwash and I don't believe any of it." A child can do that, but most children cannot offer a rejoinder making the reasonable counter-argument.

So if you disbelieve the case against Rove put forth by Cruising Ram, BoF, Paladin Elspeth and myself, I invite you to put your own case for Rove on the table. I'm sure it will make for fascinating reading.

After all this board is called Americas DEBATE, not America DISAGREES.

To my knowledge, McCain was never ahead of Bush among Republicans in South Carolina. After winning in New Hampshire, he did get a bounce, especially among independents and Democrats. South Carolina has a "modified open primary" link



January 30, 2000: Poll: Bush trouncing McCain in South Carolina
Feb 14, 2000: Bush Maintains Slight Edge in South Carolina, but Anything Could Happen


McCain was counting on the Democrats and Independents. They let him down (maybe because of a push poll, who knows).

The idea that the Bush campaign used smear tactics successfully kind of flies in the face of logic. Bush was ahead big time in January. His lead eroded leading up to the primary. I guess the smear tactic prevented a total collapse?

And if it worked in South Carolina, why not pull it out in other states? Why only this one state? Doesn't make sense that the ethically challenged Rove and company would abandon a successful tactic, does it?

This one is relatively easy to answer. Desperate times call for desperate measures. As your own stats indicate, McCain had a nice bump coming in from New Hampshire and Rove got nervous. After the surprising whuppin Bush took in NH, Rove knew if they lost SC too, in spite of having a lead, Bush's candidacy would likely be lost. All stops were pulled for this primary.

While I will question his ethics, I will never question Rove's intelligence. He wouldn't use the same tactics repeatedly, lest they lose their efficacy or worse, generate enough publicity to get him caught using them.

This is possibly true. But you've presented no evidence to substantiate it.

You made the accusation, so the burden's on you. Show how well McCain was doing in South Carolina before the push polls and flyers, and then compare it to afterwards, and if there's a significant downward difference, you'll begin to have a case against Rove. Until then, you have nothing whatsoever. I mean, has it even remotely occured to you that maybe public opinion might be a tad different in South Carolina than in New Hampshire? Otherwise, why bother even having primaries beyond New Hampshire?

(As for the complaint about my using the second person, that's just a normal feature of conversation where I come from, and it never even occurred to me that someone would consider it disrespectful. I presume you're aware that your name is displayed at the top of the quote box?)

Simply put if people cannot clear the fact that any negative attention giving to Karl Rove is the product of political battles and nothing more the old saying where there’s smoke there’s fire comes to mind.

Karl Rove as an entity has had a political agenda in the making for a long time and is of course running itself now as I write this, we can see it day to day with how America turned out domestically and internationally, heck bush will even admit to how much influence he has on the administration, and why I generally refer to it as the administration not just bush or rove or "watch out he’s got a gun!" cheney, wonder how the NRA will play that way speaking of such.

There has been more then one instance of unethical behavior and corruption from this admin that has resulted in negative publicity and legal actions, why is it so odd to think that rove was never knowing on any of this or not even part of it in some extent, I have my doubts as to how innocent he is overall in a great majority of things, heck they even said they want a permanent republican controlled government here, I guess that means any views held by people outside of that platform should just suck it up then and what does that really mean in the idea of freedom in the first place!!!

That’s a bad way to make politics in general conform to, simply because it sets a precedent that others may feel inclined to follow if they want to win or run themselves. Then again this administration is now finding itself to find enemies within its own ranks not just outside of it.

Having read through the thread twice, I'm very surprised at the reasons given for Rove not deserving an apology. Being an effective political strategist appears to be the number one reason given. Yes, bad things and "low blows" are dished out during campaigns, but if that is the rationale we are going to use, then it is a very poor one. Yes, Karl Rove does deserve an apology. Who from? I'll let David Broder explain in this excellent written editorial.



Any liberal blogger, columnist, politician, or other public figure who used watergate language, insinuated that laws were broken by Rove, not to mention that Rove was directly involved in this, owes Rove an apology. Stating that he doesn't deserve it for orchestrating the defeat of Cleland, McCain, or anyone else is beside the point and inconsequential to the topic at hand.