Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Someone tell the NYT Rove has nothing to do with this primary debacle
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Talk about ignoring history (or being abjectly ignorant of it at a minimum)the New York Times today took Hillary Clinton to task for her style of winning in PA.

They are "shocked, shocked I tell you" that a Clinton is acting like a Clinton. Of course most of that comes from a selective memory which apparently only goes back to 2000. That's why you see absurd passages like this:
On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.
Karl Roves's playbook? My guess is Karl Rove learned all the tricks of the trade from a past master of such shenanigans - Bill Clinton. You do remember that this Bush followed Clinton? And it was Clinton who was always acknowledged as the best practitioner of the politics of personal destruction, hands down. This is just Clinton II for heaven sake.

What is revealing and literally laughable is that it is only now that the NYT is discovering this 16 year old Clinton campaign tactic. Previously, apparently, it either missed it completely or studiously ignored it, because, you know, it was Republicans who were the target, not Democrats.

Now, this "Rovian" behavior is causing NYT to have second thoughts about its endorsement of Ms. Clinton.
By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.
First, the "issues" have been "engaged" for 15 months. Even Republicans know the "differences" they have on the issues. And previous "engagements" have led to nothing more than restatements of their talking points or reversion to mini-versions of their stump speeches. There's nothing to be learned from any further "engagements" on the issues. They're as alike as two peas in a pod.

What isn't settled though, is the question of the fitness of the candidates to be President (and that includes McCain as well). So it is quite legitimate to question associations, experience (or lack thereof) and other qualifications and intangibles. And what is becoming clear is that Obama is not faring well in that examination.

Apparently when these sorts of questions are asked of a Democrat it smacks of 'dirty politics'. What's uncomfortable for the NYT is the questions are being asked by another Democrat. I certainly don't remember a time when the same level of concern was expressed by the NYT when the object of such questions was a member of the opposing party, do you?

While the hypocrisy of the NYT is palpable in this editorial, near the bottom the real reason for the scolding of Clinton becomes evident:
No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they’re wrong.
Of course, they're correct. The bloom is definitely off the Obama rose. And while the NYT has finally admitted their endorsed candidate isn't going to get the nomination, they also understand the destruction that is taking place is becoming permanent. What they won't admit, however, is it has been done not by a Rovian playbook, but the older Clintonian playbook. In other words, this really isn't news.

The fact that the NYT and other Democrats are suddenly waking up to what the other half of the country has known about the Clintons for years is, frankly, hilarious. But even so, they really can't quite make themselves admit it, can they? And that inability to admit the truth is what makes self-righteous and pompous editorials like this deserve only one reaction - a good old Bronx cheer.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

The Times itself routinely takes a lower road than they are accusing Hillary Clinton of taking.

Maureen Dowd? (The only thing I like about her is that she’s a slut.)

Frank Rich? (The dictator of homocentrism.)

Paul Krugman? (Nervous BDS liar.)

And Publisher Pinch? The Times would be attacking Obama this morning, if only his opponent were gay. Because as we all know, gays have suffered far longer and much more deeply than blacks.

That’s the New York Times.
Written By: Martin McPhillips
The Idiot, Sullivan, was running this Rove gag last night.

I find him almost as disgusting as Erb, now.
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—

I find him almost as disgusting as Erb, now.
Yeah, but Erb probably doesn’t have that cool Brit accent....
Written By: Come on, Please
URL: http://
I took a look at that Sullivan item.

He writes as though a horse kicked him in the head and he couldn’t remember that the two single most repulsive political henchmen in the history of the Republic — James Carville and Paul Begala — never existed, much less worked for the Clintons.

It couldn’t simply be a case of convenient memory for Sullivan. Something had to knock out some vital part of his brain.
Written By: Martin McPhillips
That should be "ever existed".
Written By: Martin McPhillips
This is new? The Dems have been running all sorts of nasty things this election under the rubric of "this is what Rove and the GOP will do" etc etc.

What a bunch of scared b*tches. He’s gone and they’re still seeing his face everywhere. I guess when someone beats you so badly, you get paranoid about them.

PS- Rove STILL unindicted.
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"It couldn’t simply be a case of convenient memory for Sullivan. Something had to knock out some vital part of his brain."
He has lost his goddamned mind.

Last week, I watched him doing Russert’s show with Hitchens. It was just pathetic, and the worst part is that I think he knew it. He would have done just about anything for one intellectual pat on the head from Hitch, who could hardly even look at him.

It was positively gross.
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—
You know, I wonder if it was Karl Rove who taught The Former First Grapple how to deal with Billy Dale, back in the day. {snicker}
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—
Didn’t Hitchens accuse Sullivan of wanting to have Obama’s baby?
Written By: Martin McPhillips
[Rove’s] gone and they’re still seeing his face everywhere. I guess when someone beats you so badly, you get paranoid about them.
Since 2000 all elections that Democrats lose were either stolen or won by dirty Rovian tricks, didn’t you know that?

I recall my friend down in Manhattan telling me that when he went to vote in the ’04 election the guy ahead of him voted something like three times and the poll workers said nothing to him. It took my friend to say "What do you think you’re doing?" for the guy to stop. He then gave my friend a dirty look and went off in a huff.

That’s what we call life in the Big City. I thought I heard that in the 2000 election some districts in Philadelphia had 100% turnout. I guess if they had tapped the graveyard vote they could have gotten it up to 110%.
Written By: Martin McPhillips
Dammit, Beck, you must be making me nervous. I keep making grammatical errors.

That should be either "lose are" or "lost were." Take your pick.
Written By: Martin McPhillips
"Didn’t Hitchens accuse Sullivan of wanting to have Obama’s baby?"
I never heard that, but I would have loved to.
"I guess if they had tapped the graveyard vote they could have gotten it up to 110%."
Well, there are ways around that, too.

"Scheider was unavailable for comment."

But we know that Obama is from Chicago.
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—
And how did Sullivan forget about this scumbag.
Written By: Martin McPhillips
Since 2000 all elections that Democrats lose were either stolen or won by dirty Rovian tricks, didn’t you know that?
Hell, when Dems are in bed with their partners, they probably see Rove peeping in the windows, that’s how far gone they are
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Is it true that the Clintons learned a lot from Lee Atwater ?

Given that shortly before his death from a brain tumor, Atwater said he had converted to Catholicism, one is left to wonder if his idol was Joe Kennedy.
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Hold the presses ..
Karl Rove, the president’s former political "architect,’’ did not have designs for the removal of Chicago-based U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Rove’s lawyer said today.
"Karl has known Kjellander for many years,’’ Luskin said, "but does not recall him or anyone else arguing for Fitzgerald’s removal. And he (Rove) is very certain that he didn’t take any steps to do that, or have any conversations with anyone in the White House — or in the Justice Department — about doing anything like that.’’
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I think this would be the newyork time..
Written By: jenny

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks