"I called him. He's a personal friend," Rove told reporters traveling with Bush to Wisconsin.
Rove considers Lieberman a personal friend. 'Nuff
said.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at August 10, 2006 03:21 PM
Rove strikes again! Gotta luv him!
:}
Oh wait. This is a Reuters article. How can we trust it???
Posted by: Freedom1 at August 10, 2006 03:44 PM
Rove strikes again! Gotta luv him!
:}
Posted by: Freedom1 at August 10, 2006 03:44 PM
Yes he just gave Joe his second kiss of death. LMAO!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Leftorium at August 10, 2006 03:51 PM
A match made in heaven if ever there was one.
Posted by: Salvelinus at August 10, 2006 03:55 PM
CO, given that it is likely Lieberman will win as an Independent, of course Rove called him, as there is a good chance he will caucus with Republicans. What is wrong with that? I mean, the Dems have practically drummed him out of their party.
Posted by: kjstrouble at August 10, 2006 03:55 PM
Richard Nixon and JFK were close friends. The left calls Bush divisive, but look who REALLY hates and sees anything as total divorce and total animosity as selling out?
Lefties - for goodness sakes stop the hate!
Posted by: Kahn at August 10, 2006 04:05 PM
should have read "sees anything less than total divorse and total animosity as selling out."
Posted by: Kahn at August 10, 2006 04:06 PM
Rove told Lieberman, "Don't worry, Joe. If you lose the primary, W and I will get together with Tony Blair, and we'll stage a 'foiled' terror plot. The people of CT will see that you're needed, and easily elect you as an independent. It'll work, Joe; look how good that 9/11 thing we staged worked."
Posted by: keefer at August 10, 2006 04:20 PM
KJ,
The only place it's "given" that Lieberman will "likely" win as an independent is at sites like this.
There are a whole lot of reasons that independents seldom win a contested election.
Among them are; the party machinery backing the party's nominee, the trouble with fund raising, the trouble with establishing an organization -- and that's just the start.
Lieberman just fired his whole staff -- so all he has to do is face down the whole Democratic Party while building a campaign organization and raising several million dollars -- oh, and dealing with an electorate solidly against the war and Bush -- but hey, he gets 100 days to do it. LOL
Posted by: Salvelinus at August 10, 2006 04:20 PM
"I mean, the Dems have practically drummed him out of their party." by: kjstrouble
Kjstrouble, the Dems have drummed him out of their party. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. (That was just weird to type.)
:P
Posted by: Freedom1 at August 10, 2006 04:30 PM
And really hard to grasp. I mean he was their VP canidate not so long ago. It will be interesting to see how a third party is formed (if it is) following all of this.
Posted by: kjstrouble at August 10, 2006 04:36 PM
"And really hard to grasp. I mean he was their VP canidate not so long ago." by: kjstrouble
Yeah, and on everything except national defense, Lieberman is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to the left.
Posted by: Freedom1 at August 10, 2006 04:42 PM
I don't see what the hell's so odd about Rove and Lieberman being friends. Hell, Ronald Reagan used to knock a few back with Speaker Tip O'Neill, after knocking heads with him on a daily basis.
The D.C. crowd is a big club, and we're not members. Republicrats and Demicans. War
Posted by: keefer at August 10, 2006 05:06 PM
"Hell, Ronald Reagan used to knock a few back with Speaker Tip O'Neill, after knocking heads with him on a daily basis."
keefer
That's terrific! Did Ronnie call Tip his 'personal' friend? Throwing back a few didn't prevent them from knocking heads on a daily basis, though, did it?
Kjstrouble opined, 'given that it is likely Lieberman will win as an Independent, of course Rove called him, as there is a good chance he will caucus with Republicans.'
It all sounds very cozy & intimate; don't forget that big ol' smackaroo Lieberman got from GW.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at August 10, 2006 05:48 PM
CO, do you not understand the idea of loyal opposition? It means you can disagree with a person or party, and still be patriotic. I would say Lieberman qualifies, he disagrees on many issues with the GOP, but understands about security and the war on terror. Unlike Lamont and his lefty buddies. They hate so much that no one can disagree and remain in their party.
Posted by: kjstrouble at August 10, 2006 05:56 PM
kj, why waste your time with CO--he's as insignificant as they come, and I think he's a druggie. War
Posted by: keefer at August 10, 2006 08:45 PM
I see the moderate, sane, Dems as being caught between two equally distasteful choices. On one hand, their party has been hijacked by the increasingly insane (and damned proud of it!!) radical Left, but they don't know where to turn because this goofball wing of the party is pushing them up against what is essentially a retaining wall of Bush hatred. As much as they are freaked out by the freaks, they can't overcome the anti-Bush sentiment that has been so successfully created and promoted by those same loonies. So they are caught in the middle, and the harder the neorads push the more the pressure builds.
What I wonder is what will happen when that dam breaks---when there is nothing to push against, when the neorads don't have Bush as a counter weight to keep the Dems from fleeing the party?
Personally, I see a huge number of Dems running like hell to get as far away as they can from the insanity that has taken over the party. I see many of them simply dropping out of the process, unable to support the loonies but unable to force themselves to vote Republican. (When I was in that position in '92, I voted for Perot. I could not, in any way, force myself to vote for Clinton, yet as a lifelong Dem I was for darned sure not ready to go over to the Other Side. Without Perot, I would not have voted.)
But if the Right puts up a likable candidate, a reasonable candidate, there is a good chance that candidate will harvest a lot of formerly Democratic votes. Especially if that candidate is for a strong national defense and can convince the nation of a determination to keep it safe through strength instead of relying on the generosity of the world in general. And especially if the Dems continue in the death spiral we are finding so fascinating, nominating one of their weirder element, as they seem intent on doing.
The neorads may think the same tactics they have used so successfully against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will always work---that they can always count on a mob mentality to respond to the hatemongering that they have honed to a science. But what if it doesn't work any more? What if people start to see through the lies? What if they start to notice that all it takes to be labled evil and vile and a LIAR and a chicken hawk and a coward and so on is to not be a Democrat?
What if the blogosphere is able to counter the new lies as they develop, as they have in the Dan Blather incident, as they did with the Reuters' doctored photos? What if there is a way to deal with lies as they arise, instead of giving them time to take root in the national consciousness, as was possible pre-blog?
The questions are interesting. It will be fun to see what the answers turn out to be.
Posted by:
Almiranta at August 10, 2006 08:49 PM
Almiranta,
Just curious – what was it about the Conservative / Republican philosophies pre 1992 that made you so much against them? And what was the turning point that brought you to where you are today? From what I’ve seen the Conservative / Republican group as a whole hasn’t changed much in 30 years. That’s not to say they haven’t had a few problems in that time, but as a whole their philosophy is much the same at it was when you were apparently against them. That question could probably be posed to several very pro-Bush individuals who post here in B4B.
At any rate, I want to thank you for your very insightful, funny and to the point, post. They are always a joy to read and I hope you continue. It is post like yours that give light to the truth – thank you!
Posted by: DM at August 11, 2006 09:11 AM
I think the Lieberman loss in the CT primary is a great thing for Republicans. The further left the democrats get, the more the "middle of the road" voter will vote for the guy with an R beside his name. I hated to see McKinney lose in GA.
Posted by: Brad at August 12, 2006 08:17 PM
"I called him. He's a personal friend," Rove told reporters traveling with Bush to Wisconsin.
Rove considers Lieberman a personal friend. 'Nuff
said.
Rove strikes again! Gotta luv him!
:}
Oh wait. This is a Reuters article. How can we trust it???
Rove strikes again! Gotta luv him!
:}
Posted by: Freedom1 at August 10, 2006 03:44 PM
Yes he just gave Joe his second kiss of death. LMAO!!!!!!!!
A match made in heaven if ever there was one.
CO, given that it is likely Lieberman will win as an Independent, of course Rove called him, as there is a good chance he will caucus with Republicans. What is wrong with that? I mean, the Dems have practically drummed him out of their party.
Richard Nixon and JFK were close friends. The left calls Bush divisive, but look who REALLY hates and sees anything as total divorce and total animosity as selling out?
Lefties - for goodness sakes stop the hate!
should have read "sees anything less than total divorse and total animosity as selling out."
Rove told Lieberman, "Don't worry, Joe. If you lose the primary, W and I will get together with Tony Blair, and we'll stage a 'foiled' terror plot. The people of CT will see that you're needed, and easily elect you as an independent. It'll work, Joe; look how good that 9/11 thing we staged worked."
KJ,
The only place it's "given" that Lieberman will "likely" win as an independent is at sites like this.
There are a whole lot of reasons that independents seldom win a contested election.
Among them are; the party machinery backing the party's nominee, the trouble with fund raising, the trouble with establishing an organization -- and that's just the start.
Lieberman just fired his whole staff -- so all he has to do is face down the whole Democratic Party while building a campaign organization and raising several million dollars -- oh, and dealing with an electorate solidly against the war and Bush -- but hey, he gets 100 days to do it. LOL
"I mean, the Dems have practically drummed him out of their party." by: kjstrouble
Kjstrouble, the Dems have drummed him out of their party. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. (That was just weird to type.)
:P
And really hard to grasp. I mean he was their VP canidate not so long ago. It will be interesting to see how a third party is formed (if it is) following all of this.
"And really hard to grasp. I mean he was their VP canidate not so long ago." by: kjstrouble
Yeah, and on everything except national defense, Lieberman is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay to the left.
I don't see what the hell's so odd about Rove and Lieberman being friends. Hell, Ronald Reagan used to knock a few back with Speaker Tip O'Neill, after knocking heads with him on a daily basis.
The D.C. crowd is a big club, and we're not members. Republicrats and Demicans. War
"Hell, Ronald Reagan used to knock a few back with Speaker Tip O'Neill, after knocking heads with him on a daily basis."
keefer
That's terrific! Did Ronnie call Tip his 'personal' friend? Throwing back a few didn't prevent them from knocking heads on a daily basis, though, did it?
Kjstrouble opined, 'given that it is likely Lieberman will win as an Independent, of course Rove called him, as there is a good chance he will caucus with Republicans.'
It all sounds very cozy & intimate; don't forget that big ol' smackaroo Lieberman got from GW.
CO, do you not understand the idea of loyal opposition? It means you can disagree with a person or party, and still be patriotic. I would say Lieberman qualifies, he disagrees on many issues with the GOP, but understands about security and the war on terror. Unlike Lamont and his lefty buddies. They hate so much that no one can disagree and remain in their party.
kj, why waste your time with CO--he's as insignificant as they come, and I think he's a druggie. War
I see the moderate, sane, Dems as being caught between two equally distasteful choices. On one hand, their party has been hijacked by the increasingly insane (and damned proud of it!!) radical Left, but they don't know where to turn because this goofball wing of the party is pushing them up against what is essentially a retaining wall of Bush hatred. As much as they are freaked out by the freaks, they can't overcome the anti-Bush sentiment that has been so successfully created and promoted by those same loonies. So they are caught in the middle, and the harder the neorads push the more the pressure builds.
What I wonder is what will happen when that dam breaks---when there is nothing to push against, when the neorads don't have Bush as a counter weight to keep the Dems from fleeing the party?
Personally, I see a huge number of Dems running like hell to get as far away as they can from the insanity that has taken over the party. I see many of them simply dropping out of the process, unable to support the loonies but unable to force themselves to vote Republican. (When I was in that position in '92, I voted for Perot. I could not, in any way, force myself to vote for Clinton, yet as a lifelong Dem I was for darned sure not ready to go over to the Other Side. Without Perot, I would not have voted.)
But if the Right puts up a likable candidate, a reasonable candidate, there is a good chance that candidate will harvest a lot of formerly Democratic votes. Especially if that candidate is for a strong national defense and can convince the nation of a determination to keep it safe through strength instead of relying on the generosity of the world in general. And especially if the Dems continue in the death spiral we are finding so fascinating, nominating one of their weirder element, as they seem intent on doing.
The neorads may think the same tactics they have used so successfully against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will always work---that they can always count on a mob mentality to respond to the hatemongering that they have honed to a science. But what if it doesn't work any more? What if people start to see through the lies? What if they start to notice that all it takes to be labled evil and vile and a LIAR and a chicken hawk and a coward and so on is to not be a Democrat?
What if the blogosphere is able to counter the new lies as they develop, as they have in the Dan Blather incident, as they did with the Reuters' doctored photos? What if there is a way to deal with lies as they arise, instead of giving them time to take root in the national consciousness, as was possible pre-blog?
The questions are interesting. It will be fun to see what the answers turn out to be.
Almiranta,
Just curious – what was it about the Conservative / Republican philosophies pre 1992 that made you so much against them? And what was the turning point that brought you to where you are today? From what I’ve seen the Conservative / Republican group as a whole hasn’t changed much in 30 years. That’s not to say they haven’t had a few problems in that time, but as a whole their philosophy is much the same at it was when you were apparently against them. That question could probably be posed to several very pro-Bush individuals who post here in B4B.
At any rate, I want to thank you for your very insightful, funny and to the point, post. They are always a joy to read and I hope you continue. It is post like yours that give light to the truth – thank you!
I think the Lieberman loss in the CT primary is a great thing for Republicans. The further left the democrats get, the more the "middle of the road" voter will vote for the guy with an R beside his name. I hated to see McKinney lose in GA.