Just seeing it mentioned on CNN a few times. Rove wants to spend time with his family. Odds are good he’ll be involved in the 2008 elections as well.
So, questions:
Will the white house implode without his guidance?
Is this just to get out and work on trying to win the next election?
[quote]vroom wrote:
So, questions:
Will the white house implode without his guidance?
Is this just to get out and work on trying to win the next election?[/quote]
Hasn’t it already imploded? With Bush’s approval ratings below 30% and those of Congress even lower, I fail to see how things could be much worse. When less than 1 in 3 person feels properly represented by their elected officials, something is rotten somewhere.
A lot of people are distancing themselves from Bush, and this might just be Rove doing the same.
Expect to see him pop back up after the Republican primary is decided.
Pookie, I’m not sure many around here are willing to admit the white house has imploded at this point.
Perhaps we have a large contingent of the 1/3 that does feel properly represented by their elected officials?
I too expect some type of election involvement, but I’m also curious to see if this opens him up to congressional reach?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rove wants to spend time with his family. [/quote]
I had no idea the devil could procreate.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Pookie, I’m not sure many around here are willing to admit the white house has imploded at this point.[/quote]
I don’t think we have a representative sample of the population here.
I’d bet a good portion of that contingent votes while holding their noses. “Better the evil you know…” and all that.
Right. That’ll work. More Gonzo testimony and memory loss. Worst case scenario: He gets a presidential pardon, just like Scooter.
he isn’t the first rat to flee the sinking ship
Bush is probably going to be lonely his last year in office.
The list of people that led the charge into Iraq and have since left the administration is getting rather long.
Bush is left holding the bag and the legacy of failed policy in his name alone.
Irrelevant
[quote]pookie wrote:
I’d bet a good portion of that contingent votes while holding their noses. “Better the evil you know…” and all that.
[/quote]
Sadly Pookie, this is the case too many times, especially here in La. It is extremely frustrating.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Right. That’ll work. More Gonzo testimony and memory loss. Worst case scenario: He gets a presidential pardon, just like Scooter.
[/quote]
Yeah, sadly, you are probably right. It would be great if the cheerleader types out there would see yet another person lying or feigning memory loss and really get the message about quality of leadership.
However, I have to face reality, instead of seeing the actual testimony, they’ll get clips of the president or others claiming it’s just politics. As if it all isn’t just politics anyway
Hmm, I wonder, there is always the possibility that people need to jump ship early enough that the president is still able to pardon them, if the need arises… heh.
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
Sadly Pookie, this is the case too many times, especially here in La. It is extremely frustrating.[/quote]
I know the feeling. I’ve voted that way nearly all my life. Only in the last two elections (one federal, the other provincial) did I vote for someone and not simply against the party in place (by voting for whoever had the most chance of displacing them.)
[quote]pookie wrote:
BigRagoo wrote:
Sadly Pookie, this is the case too many times, especially here in La. It is extremely frustrating.
I know the feeling. I’ve voted that way nearly all my life. Only in the last two elections (one federal, the other provincial) did I vote for someone and not simply against the party in place (by voting for whoever had the most chance of displacing them.)
[/quote]
So the big question is, how does a population get past that? Will we ever see candidates run with just their constituents’ best interest in mind, without their own agenda hiding behind false promises and lies?
Oh, that’s right, they’re not called politicians for nothing.
Oh, I’ve got the feeling “Fart Blossom” (as Bush allegedly calls Rove in private) will still be pulling strings even though he is officially out.
Do you think that the White House hopes by sending Rove to Texas to disassociate itself from some of the investigations directed toward Rove apropos the outted CIA agent case?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yeah, sadly, you are probably right. It would be great if the cheerleader types out there would see yet another person lying or feigning memory loss and really get the message about quality of leadership.[/quote]
Never mind the cheerleaders; you’ll always have people cheering for even the most despicable public figures.
The problem is that we have, by and large, become nations of spectators. Maybe it’s the inevitable outcome of too much TV. Outrageous, shameful things happen and very few do anything more than just comment on how bad it is. No one in power is held accountable. Even if they are, they can still hope for a pardon from friends in high places.
It seems that we’ve decided to surrender our outrage to the media. If they report how mad the people are about some policy or about a war or whatever, we’re satisfied we’ve been heard.
We really shouldn’t complain about government. Anything they do, we’ve allowed by choosing passivity and inaction because, you know, action is so time consuming and we might miss something good on TV.
Pookie,
It’s a lot harder to get people riled up about things when their perceptions of their own lives are generally good – even if they’re worried about the general trend of things, or about their neighbors. Particularly when they generally (and rightly) assume their individual vote won’t matter that much. That’s why half or more of electoral politics (at least here in the U.S.) is about getting the base motivated to turn out and actually vote…
[quote]BigRagoo wrote:
So the big question is, how does a population get past that? Will we ever see candidates run with just their constituents’ best interest in mind, without their own agenda hiding behind false promises and lies?
Oh, that’s right, they’re not called politicians for nothing.[/quote]
That’s a very good question. The “system” is set up to make it very difficult to form your own political party. It takes tons of money to even get off the ground, and many people think voting for a new party is equivalent to throwing their vote away - a self-fulfilling prediction, if everyone thinks that way.
Between elections, it’s also hard to get heard. You have demonstrations, but by and large, those are dismissed by the general population as being by fringe elements. It doesn’t help that many manifestants make a career out of it and are pretty loony to start with. Most people with a 9-5 job have difficulty devoting time to a cause.
You can write your representative; attend municipal and regional political meetings when these occur, but from experience, you get very little actually done from these. You can get noticed if you manage to bring a large enough group to a city council meeting that you can insure you won’t be ignored.
If it’s that hard getting heard at the lowly municipal level, imagine at the state or federal one. Individuals have no hope, other than to organize a large movement. And we’re back at not having enough time.
The problem is that even with bad government, we’re mostly pretty comfortable. We might hate paying this tax or obeying this law, but we don’t hate it enough to want to devote all our waking moments to fighting it. And the system is set up to require extraordinary measures to implement real change.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Pookie,
It’s a lot harder to get people riled up about things when their perceptions of their own lives are generally good – even if they’re worried about the general trend of things, or about their neighbors. Particularly when they generally (and rightly) assume their individual vote won’t matter that much. That’s why half or more of electoral politics (at least here in the U.S.) is about getting the base motivated to turn out and actually vote…[/quote]
The problem is: even if you do go out and vote, often the choices offered do not correspond in any way with your values or what you’d like to see get done. You often get to choose between parties that are more alike that different.
People get really hung up on trivial side issues, like gay marriage or abortion or language laws (in Quebec) that really have little impact on their day to day lives.
I think it’s one tactic that works real well for political strategists, to stir up the debates on side topics they know will inflame passions, but that are really of minimal import in the grand scheme of things.
Once elected, the party in power gets to do pretty much what they want economy-wise - keep their corporate friends happy - and simply implement whatever “crumb” policy they promised before the election.
[quote]pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Pookie,
It’s a lot harder to get people riled up about things when their perceptions of their own lives are generally good – even if they’re worried about the general trend of things, or about their neighbors. Particularly when they generally (and rightly) assume their individual vote won’t matter that much. That’s why half or more of electoral politics (at least here in the U.S.) is about getting the base motivated to turn out and actually vote…
The problem is: even if you do go out and vote, often the choices offered do not correspond in any way with your values or what you’d like to see get done. You often get to choose between parties that are more alike that different.
People get really hung up on trivial side issues, like gay marriage or abortion or language laws (in Quebec) that really have little impact on their day to day lives.
I think it’s one tactic that works real well for political strategists, to stir up the debates on side topics they know will inflame passions, but that are really of minimal import in the grand scheme of things.
Once elected, the party in power gets to do pretty much what they want economy-wise - keep their corporate friends happy - and simply implement whatever “crumb” policy they promised before the election.
[/quote]
Exactly. Slight of hand works every time.
And Rove…fuck’em. I hate’em, but I know he’ll be back eventually…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And Rove…fuck’em. I hate’em, but I know he’ll be back eventually…[/quote]
I’m not sure about that. He always was very close to Bush. He’s apparently rather disliked by the rest of his own party.
Even though he managed to get Bush elected twice and secure both houses of Congress in 2002, the condition in which he leaves the Whitehouse and Republican party on his departure speaks volume about the consequences of his “anything goes” methods.
It’s only a testament to the incompetence and ineptness of the Democratic party that there’s still a semblance of a race going on.