This article is gold, and a must read. By resume alone Karl Rove is impressive. but when you read the research and how he presents it, I find myself impressed all over again. The Republicans need 4 or 8 years to regroup and put out a ticket with Gingrich or Rove on it. Sure there won't be anyone fainting at their political rallys, but I'd take ideas that work and common sense over charisma without substance any day of the week.

Rove is like an evil boogey man to lefties, would be hilarious to see him on a national ticket.

Would also be interesting to see Karl Rove on trial for his crimes. Of course, it would be less interesting if the trial ended in a presidential grant of amnesty, like with Scooter Libby.

Hahahahahaha. He said crimes. Like Obama laundering money through Resko, or many of our Senators earmarking taxpayer money for personal gain, he will likely never see any kind of indictment. Hes about as squeeky clean as you get in Washington. Then again, I'm a Kissenger fan as well.

I will never vote for another Republican until they go back to the platform they came from -- FISCAL CONSERVATISM.

Originally Posted by cbwm

but I'd take ideas that work and common sense over charisma without substance any day of the week.

Sour grapes, huh? Can't say I blame you... On that note, though, are you a closeted Clinton supporter? I ask because, well, apart from the obvious, I get the idea Obama copyrighted the word "change" and Hillary copyrighted the word "substance" along with its derivatives. Truth is, I haven't heard anything of substance from any mainstream politician in a long time.

But since you mentioned your preference for "substance," which is hilarious, can you help me figure something out? You still talk Bush up, one of the last supporters. This isn't just a man who couldn't find oil in Texas, this is a man who couldn't hold a children's book right-side-up while America was being attacked. Just about all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi,

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Sour grapes, huh? Can't say I blame you... On that note, though, are you a closeted Clinton supporter? I ask because, well, apart from the obvious, I get the idea Obama copyrighted the word "change" and Hillary copyrighted the word "substance" along with its derivatives. Truth is, I haven't heard anything of substance from any mainstream politician in a long time.

But since you mentioned your preference for "substance," which is hilarious, can you help me figure something out? You still talk Bush up, one of the last supporters. This isn't just a man who couldn't find oil in Texas, this is a man who couldn't hold a children's book right-side-up while America was being attacked. Just about all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi,

I suppose I could be a closeted Hillary supporter, but not for because she has "substance". I'd take her over Obama as I suspect she is more of a centerist. I'd probably take her over McCain(Dont hold me to that), as she may be right of McCain.

I like Bush for likely many of the reasons so many dislike him. He's a smart *ss. He sticks to his position regardless of which way the political wind is blowing. He seems to have trouble putting together a decent sentence and has the liberals enraged as they question his intelligence while at the same time had them voting his legislation through time after time after time. I suspect that, in person, he is every bit as charismatic as Obama(minus the fainting /cough snake oil). In my opinion, these things ARE substance and character. Most people who possess these types of qualities are quickly destroyed in politics for having those very qualities. The fact he got re-elected with a large popular and electoral majority is testimony to his political savvy and the skills of the people who decided to work with him. Like the majority of the military and roughly a third of the American populace, I'd take Bush III over McCain or Obama any day of the week. Just talking bout it reminds me of what a piece of poop McCain is. Bush's third term my *ss. The guy couldn't hold his shoes, no less fill them.

Just talking bout it reminds me of what a piece of poop McCain is. Bush's third term my *ss. The guy couldn't hold his shoes, no less fill them.

You're right, being a war criminal is a hard image to live up to.
Are there even a million Iraqis left that McCain could be responsible for killing? Bush has over a million Iraqis' blood on his hands.

But then, McCain doesn't want to kill anybody, he just wants to occupy their country for 100 years.

Originally Posted by cbwm

He sticks to his position regardless of which way the political wind is blowing.

Bush sticks to his opinions regardless of which way reality is blowing! Flat-earther is a better analogy than principled maverick.

Originally Posted by cbwm

He seems to have trouble putting together a decent sentence and has the liberals enraged

There are a lot of liberals in Seattle, as you can imagine. I haven't seen any of them 'enraged' over the president's linguistic disability. Saddened, ashamed, pitiful, and the like ... but not enraged. Bush called the literacy of America's children appalling ... and he was so very close to being right!

You brought up the president of the United States's intelligence after his inability to speak ... "why don't you volunteer? why don't you mentor a child how to read?" and "rarely is the question asked, our, is our children learning?"

Originally Posted by cbwm

I suspect that, in person, he is every bit as charismatic as Obama(minus the fainting

Bush fainted after drinking an alcoholic pretzel, remember.

Originally Posted by cbwm

In my opinion, these things ARE substance and character.

I still have no idea what you could possibly mean by this?

Originally Posted by cbwm

roughly a third of the American populace, I'd take Bush

He's about as popular as Richard Nixon, you're right. But then I wouldn't say "people like him, which makes him full of substance ..." I can't say being unpopular is the reason Bush lacks substance, either. It's a reflection of the reasons.

Originally Posted by nyef

Bush has over a million Iraqis' blood on his hands.

Wow. Million you say. You have some documentation to back that number up? Or documentation to attribute those deaths to the U.S. vs.... lets say.... Al Queda?

hmmm.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Bush sticks to his opinions regardless of which way reality is blowing!

That depends on whose reality are we talking about.. his, yours, or mine.

In regard to facts, over 3000 American lives were lost in the single largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor as a direct result of Clinton's irresponsibility on foreign policy. Since that day, there have been no further attacks by Al Queda on American soil. It hasn't been without cost in blood, treasure, and popularity ratings for Mr. Bush.

Its very popular to be anti-Bush right now. Just about as popular percentage wise as it was to be pro-Iraq war in 2002. I suppose it just goes to show you the masses are often *sses.

Originally Posted by cbwm

That depends on whose reality are we talking about.. his, yours, or mine.

No, but that's a very admirable attempt at spin. Reality is a thing that supersedes peoples' opinions ... much to the current administration's chagrin.

Originally Posted by cbwm

In regard to facts, over 3000 American lives were lost in

Of the 19 hijackers, 0 came from Iraq, where Bush managed to tie our troops up hopelessly for "100 years" in a civil war. We might as well have attacked Mexico. 17 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so Bush in his infinite stupidity decides to invade Iraq...? You and I both know al Qaeda and Iraq had nothing to do with each other until 2003.

Originally Posted by cbwm

The Republicans need 4 or 8 years to regroup

Speaking of spin ... how is this any different from "I realized she was no good for me, right after she dumped me?"

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

No, but that's a very admirable attempt at spin. Reality is a thing that supersedes peoples' opinions ... much to the current administration's chagrin.

I wish that were true. I agree with you that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and yet we are there so we have to live with that. None of the hijackers may have been from Iraq and Al Queda had only a minor presence there prior to the war, but on the bright side, they flooded into Iraq at the prospect of killing U.S. troops, kind of like roaches checking into the roach motel. Personally, I'd rather have them shot on sight in Iraq then arrested and tried in the U.S..

The Dems are having a hard time dealing with the lack of attacks on U.S. soil, which is hard to spin as anything but a success for the Bush Administration. Maybe they should try the slogan, "If its working, its time to change it." I'm sure this is one of the results of the "Disastrous Bush Policies" that Obama would work hard to bring "change" to.

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Speaking of spin ... how is this any different from "I realized she was no good for me, right after she dumped me?"

The American public makes for a pretty fickle girlfriend. People want peace, security, and prosperity. Failure to deliver on any of the three will likely not get your party re-elected. Failure to deliver on two out of three will make it nearly impossible for your party to get re-elected. What does that say about the Democrats that McCain is running nearly even this year?

On the subject of prosperity, I read an article that laid out a detailed relationship between the dot-com bust and the housing boom. Greenspan went on about the "Wealth Effect" from so many new millionaires being created from the dot com boom. Even after the bust, there were way more after than there were before. Apparently a large amount of that money went into the housing market and fed the obscene price increases felt in many parts of the nation. It makes me wonder, is the housing boom money now funneling into Oil, Gold, and their corresponding futures markets? In the 70s, when Carter tax policies created the oil shortages, there were lines at the gas stations because there was a true shortage of oil. No such lines exist today. It makes me wonder when the over inflated oil and gold markets are going to burst and where all that money will go next.

Originally Posted by cbwm

In the 70s, when Carter tax policies created the oil shortages, there were lines at the gas stations because there was a true shortage of oil. No such lines exist today. It makes me wonder when the over inflated oil and gold markets are going to burst and where all that money will go next.

Carters policies did not create the oil shortages, they just made bad things worse. The first oil shortage was under Nixon and was the result of the Yom Kippur war. The crisis in 1979 under Carter was the the result of the Iranian revolution and the subsequent Iraqi invasion of Iran that resulted in oil being cut from Iran and Iraq.