Karl Rove

…is no conservative. Well, duh. Neither is George W. Bush (or his father).

One point he missed — Bush’s flouting of the Constitution in signing McCain-Feingold while declaring it unconstitutional. The House should have threatened him (appropriately) with impeachment for that. It was a blatant violation of his oath of office.

If you have a half an hour, you might also want to listen to Mark Levin’s righteous rant on this topic.

23 thoughts on “Karl Rove”

  1. The House that passed the law isn’t going to impeach him for signing it, though I agree with the sentiment–it was absolutely a violation of his oath and of the Constitution to openly state that he was acting unconstitutionally.

    That’s a major flaw in our system–it allows the branches to, essentially, conspire to violate the Constitution. If the Supreme Court had played along, which it has in plenty of instances, a clearly unconstitutional law would be enforced.

    I’ve long thought we need some sort of fourth branch or even an extra-governmental body that has the sole power of removing politicians from office for unconstitutional actions. Modeled loosely on the old Roman republican office of the censor. Of course, the real trick would be keeping the censor from being an attack dog of the political parties, but nothing is perfect.

  2. I am not surprised. I expected to see the Radical Right Republican (or whatever they are calling themselves today) bloggers to start a campaign against Karl Rove as soon as I saw Karl Rove had joined the movement to purge the Tea Party radicals from the Republican Party.


    Conservative Victory Project, Karl Rove-Backed Anti-Tea Party Effort, Sets Stage For Intra-GOP Savagery

    Posted: 02/04/2013 1:17 pm EST
    Updated: 02/04/2013 1:33 pm EST

    1. I don’t know many actual conservatives who are still calling themselves Republicans of any kind these days. All Rove is doing is ensuring that he gets to be top frog in a shrinking pond.

      No surprise that you prefer Rove in that struggle.

      1. McGehee,

        You mean the Tea Party is finally going to create their own political party instead of stealing the party the Republican spent 150 years building? About time.

    2. The Tea Party — a group of millions of people dedicated to the issue of fiscal solvency — is radical?

      That’s what it’s come to? The very idea of fiscal solvency is now radical? We’re in even more trouble than I thought.

      1. Hi Michael,

        [[[The Tea Party — a group of millions of people dedicated to the issue of fiscal solvency — is radical?]]]

        Ahh, the great lie, excuse me – cover story, the astroturfers have programed into you. Think about it, if that was true, if fiscal solvency was the ONLY thing the Tea Party was interested in than Rep. Ron Paul would be both their leader and the President of the United States while the Tea Party would control the government.

        But it is easy to see it is NOT what the Tea Party is about by just looking at their candidates, perpetual losers like Sharon (the Loon) Angle, Christine (I am not a witch) O’Donnel, Dennis (goon squad) Miller, Todd (rape is God’s will) Atkins, Michelle (Swiss Miss) Bachmann and Sara (Queen Bee) Palin. All candidates or wanna be candidates who spend their time talking about taking away women rights, reproduction rights, imposing federal regulation of marriage, bashing immigrates, trying to replace science with religious beliefs in school, etc. Sure they do mention “balance budget” occasionally when they wave their Tea Party flag and repeat the Tea Party chant, “Obama is a socialist”, but given how poorly they handle their own finances its insane to think they could balance the federal budget.

        No, if the Tea Party was truly about fiscal responsibility than their candidates would be accountants, financial advisors, CFOs and bankers, not religious radicals who give Christianity a bad name as they try to make its beliefs federal law.

        And this returns us to Karl Rove and the point he is trying to make, folks judge a movement by the candidates they put forward, and if they are seen as kooks so is the movement. So if the Tea Party really wants to elect individuals who are conservative and fiscally responsible they need to select candidates who are electable, not a cross section of right wing kooks.

        And I support that 100%. And if you TRULY believe that the Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility and fiscal solvency you would as well.

  3. It’s obvious from most of his posts that Moby Matula wants to purge any faction in the GOP that poses any significant threat to the Planation. Maybe instead of “Moby” I should just call him “Uncle Tom.” He just doesn’t like those uppity conservatives who don’t know their place.

    1. Bilwick,

      I am sure you post makes sense in the world you live in. But if you mean I am tired of the Tea Party kooks trying to steal the Republican Party from Republicans because they are too lazy to create their own, the answer is yes.

      1. Dear Moby,

        I’m guessing in your world, “Tea Party” kooks” translates as “uppity tax-serfs.” But please correct me if I’m wrong. I recall your weird attempts to make the entire Tea Party movement some kind of front for the John Birch Society. We both know that is b.s.; but assuming it’s so, what kind of grass-roots anti-statist movement WOULD you support if it tried to take over the Republican Party? Or (as I suspect) wou;d you prefer a gelded, deferential “Uncle Tom” or “Uncle Dave” (Brooks, Frum), me-too GOP that poses absolutely no threat to Massa ‘Bama’s Plantation?

        1. Moby,

          Let’s see. The Tea Party uses the same symbols as the JBS, the Tea Party has the identical agenda as the JBS, Tea Party candidates often attend JBS conventions to raise money and the Koch brothers, who daddy founded the JBS, bank roll many of the Tea Party groups. Yet YOU see no connection. While I guess the rank and file like you have to believe there is no connection since the alternative is to admit your were conned by a slick astroturf movement…

          What I would support is simple, I would support the old Reagan style Republican Party, one that focused on supporting the middle class, favored small businesses over Wall Street giants and treated the military with respect.

          1. Its funny, in your second paragraph you sound like a Tea Partier. In your first, you sound like a truther war for oil type.

          2. wodun,

            Expect that the candidates the Tea Partiers support aren’t like that. Instead they only give lip service to supporting the Middle Class/small business while ranting against abortion and immigrants, promoting the religious right’s agenda and calling everyone else a socialist. Than cry foul when they lose.

      2. “Tea Party Kooks” = actual Republican voter base.
        Matula is tired of Republicans having any say in how the Republican Party is run, and wants Republican voters to shut up and take what their ‘betters’ put in front of them- for the good of the collective.

        Why am I not surprised?

        1. Except that most Tea Party members had little to do with the Republican Party before joining the band wagon.

  4. Bilwick,

    Exactly, which is why I see you and wodun as lost causes – exhibit one of why President Obama was able to be re-elected.

    1. The Tea Party was completely shut out of the conventions, there was a Northeastern moderate “republican” running at the top of the ticket, much of his campaign staff (including Steve Schmidt, who deliberately betrayed an earlier campaign because he thought the VP candidate was NOKD), Romney never even had a meeting with the Tea Party heads, the RNC deliberately ran a social-isssues-free campaign focusing on economic issues at the exclusion of everything else, Romney supported sanctury cities…
      Thomas, you got exactly the kind of campaign and candidate that you wanted in ’12. What happened? that’s right- America ran away from him, and he failed to oust an incumbent with the worst economic record in the past fifty years. 2012 was a straight-up Thomas Matula election, and Thomas Matula got spanked.

      When those Tea Partiers you despise set the agenda, in 2010, they produced one of the biggest mandates ever handed any party. 2010 was a Tea Party election- even the Democrats admit it- and the Tea Party, not the RNC nor the ‘moderates’, nor Thomas Matula, brought home victory.
      Which the Thomas Matula republicans in the House and Senate promptly threw away.

      Go cry some more, Thomas, but try not to get your fail on us.

      1. DaveP,

        Yes, you would think they would take the hint and form there own party instead of trying to steal the Republican’s Party.

        As for 2010, it was the Republican’s year to win with the Tea Party riding their coat tails. In fact the Tea Party actually stopped them from winning bigger by costing them a number of Senate seats in 2010 just as the Tea Party lost them a number of Senate seats this year, along with the big prize, the presidency.

          1. Bilwick,

            Again, there is nothing holding you to the Republican Party. If you don’t like it join the Libertarian Party. Imagine where they would be today is the Tea party supported them instead of ignoring them.

            But of course to be a Libertarian, like a True Republican you have to actually believe in individual freedom and not just claim you do while supporting laws that take it away and put the federal government into everyone’s bedrooms.

Comments are closed.