Post Election Quote Of The Day

Karl Rove doesn't seem to confident in the Tea Bagger wins this past week either.

Let's not kid ourselves....The Republicans are on probation. That's why they've got to do in office what they said they would do on the campaign trail when it comes to these big issues.

Funny that all these cheers of a Tea Bagger Tidal Wave are starting to end up with cries of "do we have flood insurance"?

This Was To Be Expected

And right on cue....



For starters, O'Reilly and Rove have no way of backing up their assertions that the poll is a fraud ( Nate Silver thinks it's legit ) and rely on largely on diminishing the very real aspects of what Daily Kos is. It's standard Fox"News", O'Reilly, schtick - hurl school-yard invective at your target - and what's with Rove stating that a higher ratio of "curse words" invalidates a legitimately researched poll? But doesn't O'Reilly realize that the people he identifies with, even the people he works with, fit precisely into what this poll shows?







Gee, I wonder why Republicans think the way they do?

I Know A Guy Who Knows A Guy

Once again, let us witness the bold-face lies of "Turd-Blossum"

We know from her record on the 2nd Court of Appeals that she's not a particularly effective colleague. I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court while we were reviewing his record, it -- you know, people who were familiar with the workings of the court said that she was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues.

Sonia Sotomayor served on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito served on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

I don't have a degree in Math, but the most rudimentary knowledge of such tells me that 2 and 3 aren't the same.

Well, I'm not going to comment on what he said about her, because I didn't hear him say anything specifically about her, but when I was talking to people about the 2nd Court of Appeals -- for example, look, as you know, justices circulate opinions and -- to their colleagues to get their feedback and to act as, you know, sort of a prompt for discussions when they meet in chambers.

Well -- in conference, excuse me -- what she would do is she would mark them up like she was your English school teacher and -- with your typos and misspellings and other words that she wanted to have changed, and send them back to her colleagues -- not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with your colleagues.

Of course he's not going to comment on this, he's making it up as he goes along.

To approach this topic from the perspective of the use of "anonymous sources", one has to also look at what other pundits, writers, and reporters have said in their various columns, blogs, and on-air reports that have also come from "anonymous sources".

From my perspective, the use of "anonymous sources" to create the bulk of your thesis statement tends to make readers less likely to believe your claims, unless you have a counterbalance of facts backed-up with "open" sources that can be verified by your readers.

Also, if the author has crediblity outside of the article where he/she is usging "anonymous" sources, the likelihood that their readership is going to believe what they read is increased.

However, with the continued onset of fierce, ideological, voices that are bent on pushing a "message" rather than facts, the use of "anonymous sources" by people like Karl Rove increases the likelihood that their subject matter is extremely by an exponentially large degree.

It is for this reason that any and all that read anything written by Rove or see an interview with him where he cites "anonymous sources" should question each and every point he makes. The problem is that so many have become numb to the use of unverifiable sources that they now lack that ability to question them. Also, if the reader has their own ideological bent to push, then facts be damned.

More from Media Matters

More from Media Matters.

Ignorant, Conservative, Quote Of The Day

While the next two to four months of maneuverings and hearings may provide more insights into the views of Mr. Obama's pick, barring an unforeseen development -- not unheard of in Supreme Court nominations -- Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic) and third woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. Democrats will win the vote, but Republicans can win the argument by making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents.

Karl "I'm Really Spending More Time With My Family, Really I Am" Rove in an article from the Rupert Murdock owned Wall Street Journal.

There's a problem with this though, Benjamin Cardozo was a Jew who's ancestry was traced back to Portugal. Portugal is not considered a Hispanic country.

It can, and has, been argued that what is at issue is not that Portugal is normally considered a Hispanic country, but the very real fact that people like Rove use ethnic terminology in order to seem more educated than those they are attempting to inform or represent - if they be an elected official, which Rove was thankfully not.

It is likely that this line of thinking, that one particular race has held a particular position in government, will be used against the next African American that runs for the Presidency.

Worst In The World v 5.7 & 5.8

Blackwater CEO Eric Prince

Karl Rove

Rush Limbaugh

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Fox Business Network

Henner Schmidt

Gretchen Carlson

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And If You Try Hard Enough.....

The six-degrees-of-seperation game isn't just a game to those at Fox"News". Often, it is a debate tool and most certainly one that is used to connect any and everyone to some "scandal" merely out of ideological expedience.

Case-in-point is the obvious glee in Sean Hannity's voice as he tries to link Obama and Rob Blagojevich. His latest attempt in casting Obama in the role of villan took an interesting turn, as his guests - ones that he was sure would be the "yes" men that he requires each night - didn't really buy into the notion



President-Elect Obama could give Sean Hannity the cure for cancer and he would complain that it wasn't cherry-flavoured.

In all, this is a trumped-up notion that only serves as a new talking-piont within the lunatice fringe.

The Liberal Bias Of Reality

There are a few certainties in life that we can take comfort in or be justifiably afraid of.

Death. Taxes. Getting your heart broken by the special boy or girl. The media being in the tank for anyone Bill O'Reilly doesn't like.



The ease with which O'Reilly and Rove peddle ignorance and shear idiocy as fact has ceased to be amazing.

They don't seem to realize that an economic collapse doesn't recognize party affiliation. They both seem to be operating under the misguided assumption that simply by pandering to the lunatic-fringe within their party is somehow going to revitalize them, is going to bring validity back to the Republican party.

It is, in point of fact, people like O'Reilly and Rove that have damaged - and will continue to, so long as they have grocery money to take home at the end of the week - the Republican to such an extent that all they are able to do is flail about and cry out for any amount of attention they can get.

In their minds, the simple reportage of what the economy is doing is tantamount to anti-Americanism on a mass scale. However, these are men that make their living off of distributing propoganda.

More here

I'm Going To Tell On You

Naturally, if you are a high-level member of an exiting Presidential administration, you've got to get your book-deal on.

Karl Rove's new book ( I'm not certain of the title, but it's probably going to be something like If You Don't Like George Bush Then You're A Baby Killer ) that he apparently wrote in between guest appearances on various Fox"News" shows and allegedly spending time with his family is going to have a "list". It's a list of people that weren't nice to his friend, George.

It's probably going to be long list.

Rove states that...

“There were people who never accepted the legitimacy of George W. Bush and acted accordingly,”

Also reserved for between the covers of Rove’s book is his checklist of the “great many of the political actors in this town (who) never accepted him as a legitimate president.”

“I’ve got behind-the-scenes episodes that are going to show how unreceiving they were of this man as president of the United States,” Rove said, adding: “I’m going to name names and show examples.”

More here from the Statesman website.

Thankfully, this will only be a list of people that work "in Washington". Had this been an open-ended list, you would be better off going out and purchasing a phonebook for every state.

The Diefication Of Bush Has Already Begun

From WashingtonMonthly.com comes word that there is a - get this - Bush Legacy Project in place now attempting to sandblast away all the rotten bits of George W. Bush's presidency and make it seem like it was all wine and roses.

"[T]here's an ongoing Bush legacy project that's been meeting in the White House, really, with senior advisers, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes has been involved, current senior Bush administration advisers and they are looking at how to sort of roll out the president's legacy."

No suprise that Karl "I'm resigning to spend time with my family" Rove is part of this. Considering he is the guy that has "The Math", perhaps he is going to be the man who has "The History".

Since the Bush administration was exceptionally proficient in rewriting history - and they certainly had plenty of people to believe it - i'm sure that Rove and Hughes will have some nice memos to send out so their "people" are up to speed.

Turd-Blossum In A Tizzy

Karl Rove has been doing his best to try and make any that will listen to him believe that Obama didn't just pull off a fantastic win against John McCain.

In the upcoming Sunday NYT Magazine, Rove spins like a Dradle and does his best to make it look like Obama didn't do much better than Bush did in 2004:

Do you see the election results as a repudiation of your politics? Our new president-elect won one and a half points more than George W. Bush won in 2004, and he did so, in great respect, by adopting the methods of the Bush campaign and conducting a vast army of persuasion to identify and get out the vote.

But what about your great dream of creating a permanent Republican governing majority in Washington?
I never said permanent. Durable.

Well, that is one way to look at it. But, this is what is to be expected from Rove, the man with THE math. The way I see it, is the Electoral College totals for Bush were 286 and Kerry 252 in 2004. The results told a vastly different story this year: Obama won 365 and McCain 162.

Karl is also the man that was shouting "MANDATE" back in 2004. Seems that the same doesn't hold true now.

Worst In The World v 3.5 - 3.8

Neil Cavuto

Sausage And Hotdogs (?)

Steve Doocy



Barack Obama

Sean Hannity

Karl Rove



Robbers from Kuala Lampur

Bill O'Reilly

Congresswoman Michelle Bachman (R)



Congressman Steve King (R)

Fox"News" Correspondant Brian Wilson

Bill O'Reilly

Reason # 6043 Why The Daily Show Matters

Sure, we know that people like O'Reilly, Rove, and Dick "I Love To Suck Toes" Morris are uunblushingly hypocritical, but John Stewart solidifies that point for any that might be the slightest bit confused.





If the Comedy Central "embed" link isn't working, here's the link from SilentPatriot @ C&L.

Karl Rove vs. The New York Times : Hypocrisy in Action

Apparently, that greasy paint-load that is Karl Rove is upset with the NewYork Times about a story they did about a CIA agent that questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - the alleged September 11th mastermind.

They pure comedy that rests within this righteous indignation is the fact that Rove is seated in the middle of the Valerie Plame Affair. Sure, there are other ancillary characters in the story that are just as much to blame ( ie - Richard Armitage, Robert Novak, "Scooter Libby", and more than likely Dick Cheney ).

Nevermind that the agent mentioned by The Times was never 'udnercover' and had been mentioned in other articles and books. The Times explained that this was a 'judgement call' and provided 'completeness' to the story.

This is all just more standard fodder for the conservative movement. George W. Bush doesn't like the Times so - in turn - all his little droogies have to hate the Times as well. It's all just a game of 'follow-the-leader' on a mass scale.

Here's Rove's discussion on the topic with that self-described 'humble-correspondant' himself - Bill O'Reilly:

Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove

I'm a big fan of poltics now.

Not sure how this all came to be. I think it was somewhere around the 2004 election after I had moved back to my hometown, cleaned-up, and started to get my life back on track when I noticed how much George W. Bush's "America" sucked. There was nothing that made me think that I had it any better in Bush's "America", but I was smart enough to see that many people had it worse.

Now, some would say that I 'hate' America for saying such things. Well, it's those same people that deify George W. Bush on a daily basis. And, those same people really don't give a second thought about people like you, or me, and just about anyone that doesn't eagerly lick the dirt from their boots.





Tomorrow, a new book about one of the men ( if not THE man ) that created George W. Bush. This book on Rove will be a great read for those that want to get inside the mind of the man the Conservative movement labeled 'The Architect' and the man that others called 'Bush's Brain'.

Of course, you're also guaranteed to hear lots of people ( read: Fox"News" ) defending him and trying to create an aura of good-will and 'patriotism' around him. I'm sure that it will start tonight, if it hasn't already.

You can read and excerpt here.

It's been stated that Rove once claimed of Bush, "That man could be President". Of course, the folly of that statement was that he shouldn't have been.



KARL ROVE SPEAKING ABOUT HIS INVOLVEMENT/LACK THEREOF IN THE Don Siegelman CASE