ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Foleygate is Another Rovian Conspiracy

At least, according to The New Republic and these deranged DUers:

10.12.06

HOW ROVE TWISTED FOLEY'S ARM:

It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities.

But there's more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark's a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, 'I'm thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.'"

But when Foley's friend saw the Congressman again this spring, something had changed. To the source's surprise, Foley told him he would indeed be standing for re-election. What happened? Karl Rove intervened.

According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn't, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.

"He said, 'The White House made it very clear I have to run,'" explains Foley's friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist. "I said, 'I thought you wanted out of this?' And he said, 'I do, but they're scared of losing the House and the thought of two years of Congressional hearings, so I have two more years of duty.'"

The White House declined a request for comment on the matter, but obviously the plan hasn't worked out quite as Rove hoped it would.

--Ryan Lizza
posted 08:35 a.m.

[Reactions from DU]
gasperc (1000+ posts)
Thu Oct-12-06 10:29 AM
Response to Original message

10. Let's push the hell out of the Rove angle

till we're blue in the face, the farther we push Rove in the corner the nastier he'll be, the nastier the more mistakes the lunatic will make.

Also, we add to the internal rage in the conservative movement about the cover up. And for Rove to insist that Foley run again throws gas on a raging fire


bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Thu Oct-12-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message

19. Rove would run Charles Manson if he thought he'd win the district

What did Rove know and when did he know it?


emrap Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Thu Oct-12-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message

27. Great news...I have been waiting for Rove's name

to enter this story. Rove knew all about Foley's sexual history...and he blackmailed him into staying in Congress so the repugs could keep the House and not face Justice.

Scream it from the rooftops! This is campaign season and we gotta win so to keep our Democracy!

Tell Keith Olbermann!!!

Thx kpete!

That evil genius, Rove... could've run almost any republican in the district and won, but instead decided to stick it out with a guy who had some interest in sending IMs to male pages.

I think these guys have seen too much bumbling from Democratic strategists to recognize that this just doesn't make sense.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

New Ad

Drudge has a copy of a new political ad that was produced by Hollywood producer David Zucker, yes the same David Zucker of Airplane! and The Naked Gun. (Parenthetical note, I have it on good authority that Penelope's one weakness is movies such as this. She's gets tied up in fits of laughter so great it ruins her aim....)

This ad is very timely with the latest in the news out of North Korea. From Drudge:

In the ad, Zucker, producer of SCARY MOVIE 4, recreates former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's 2000 visit to North Korea. During the visit, Secretary Albright presented North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il with a basketball autographed by former NBA superstar Michael Jordan.

An actress playing Secretary Albright is shown presenting Kim Jong Il with the Michael Jordan basketball, painting the walls of Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan cave and turning a blind eye to suicide bombers. In one scene her skirt rips as she changes the tire of a Middle Eastern dictator's limousine.

Drudge inclused a Youtube link of the video, go watch it for yourself.

One GOP strategist said "jaws dropped" when the ad was first viewed. "Nobody could believe Zucker thought any political organization could use this ad. It makes a point, but it's way over the top."

Hmm.. Who could the strategist be? The GOP isn't "using" this ad, because then it would be all about how the GOP is making fun of Albright. Yet, by distributing on YouTube, they have effectively managed to get wider distribution than if they had put it on the Today show, without the political backlash.

Pure brilliance.

p.s. the best line of the whole ad, "...the Security of the United States is not a game, can we afford a party that treats it like one?"

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian

Monday, October 09, 2006

W's Economy

If only there wasn't so much unemployment... I mean, how can people get by and continue to live in an economy which has.... 4.6% unemployment?

Whoops:

The Worker Rally
October 9, 2006; Page A18

The Labor Department released its September jobs report on Friday, and some wags are calling it the "whoops" report. The "whoops" is a reference to the upward revision of 810,000 previously undetected jobs that Labor now says were created in the U.S. economy in the 12 months through March 2006.

So instead of 5.8 million new jobs over the past three years, the U.S. economy has created 6.6 million. That's a lot more than a rounding error, more than the number of workers in the entire state of New Hampshire. What's going on here?

Our hypothesis has been that, due to the changing nature of the U.S. economy, the Labor Department's business establishment survey has been undercounting job creation from small businesses and self-employed entrepreneurs. That job growth has been better captured in Labor's companion household survey, which reported 271,000 new jobs in September after 250,000 new jobs in August, and a very healthy total of 2.54 million new jobs in the past year.

The household survey is what is used to determine the unemployment rate, which fell in September to 4.6%, the lowest level in five years. The establishment survey, meanwhile, is used to announce the monthly "new jobs" numbers. Every year the Labor Department revises its job estimates from the previous year, in essence reconciling the figures from the two surveys, and the missing 810,000 jobs was the result through March 2006.

Getting out of the statistical weeds, the news here is that the U.S. has a very tight labor market -- which is now translating into significant wage gains. Over the past 12 months wages have climbed by 4%, which is the biggest gain since 2001 and which economist Brian Wesbury points out is higher than the 3.3% average annual wage growth of the last 25 years.
[...]
This boom in employment started in August of 2003, roughly coincident with the economy's growth acceleration in the wake of the Bush Administration's 2003 tax cuts on dividends, capital gains and in the top marginal income rate on the highest earners. Yet on the same day that the Labor Department discovered 810,000 new jobs, Nancy Pelosi promised that if she becomes Madam Speaker next year, within 100 hours of taking the gavel the House will vote to repeal those tax cuts and raise the minimum wage. Never underestimate the ways that Washington politicians can do economic harm.


Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Because of the Hypocrisy!!!

First, the Lefties were all bemoaning the GOP's inability to control their rogue homosexuals... Or conflating graphic instant messages to an of-age person of the same sex to pedophilia (nevermind the fact that pedophilia by definition involves pre-pubescent children). OliverWillis had more than 10 posts which referred to Foleygate as the "Republican Pedophile Scandal" and asking questions such as "What did he know and when did he know it?"

Well, now the Lefty Moonbats are gnashing their teeth over the possibility that this might turn into some pogrom against gays in the GOP. From TRex (one of the more vile contributors) at FireDogLake:

Dear Gay Republicans,

Hi, it's TRex and I was wondering if we could talk some time real soon. I know we've had our differences in the past and all, and that some of the things I have said about you self-hating, traitorous, invertebrate bitchez have been less than kind. But I also understand that things have gotten a little uncomfortable for y'all over there in the stuffy, dirty closets of RNC headquarters of late, so I thought that out of the goodness of my heart, I would offer you this one last opportunity for polite discourse before the November elections come and a Democratic Congress proceeds to hose down your lives with shit-sauce on the one side while the Christian Right try to burn you at the stake on the other.

Never mind that we told you so. Never mind that all this time you've surely known at some level that your affiliation with the Republican Party was wrong. The Mark Foley debacle is a grenade in the gay GOP foxhole. This scandal has legs. Mark Foley's legs. And they're in the air. With the elections a month away, the Reich Wing is going to be looking for a scapegoat, and guess who that's going to be? Funny how things work out, isn't it?
[...]

It goes on... So, the GOP is deficient if it doesn't police its members and monitor every Instant Message or email that its members might send to anyone... and if they start to ask questions about an email that might say "Hey, would be great if you'd send me a photo of yourself!", it's night of the Long Knives and the GOP is killing Matthew Shepard all over again.

If only the Dems were as serious about monitoring terrorists emails as they were about monitoring emails from a GOP congressman.

Two articles which are must reads... this from Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun-Times who predicted exactly this script.
ut I very much doubt, despite the expertise with which the sheep have been rounded up and set baa-ing, that Showtime at the Foley Bergere will pay off in November. There are many legitimate reasons for electors to toss out the Republican Congress, but the notion that they're a hotbed of gay pedophile enablers is not one of them. Had Foley dug in and attempted to cling on, his GOP colleagues would have been all over TV deploring his behavior, calling on him to step down, expressing outrage, etc. After two or three days, a few lefties might even have piped up to assail the Republican theocrat sexual McCarthyites tormenting the poor chap. Had he actually had sex with congressional pages, affronted gay groups would have pointed out this was perfectly legal in the relevant jurisdictions and would have complained ferociously about the stigmatizing of gay relationships and Democrats would have declared there should be places for all at the American table, especially had Foley done a Jim McGreevey and announced that "my truth is I am a gay American." A few quirks of timing and the parties' respective roles might have been entirely reversed. Scandalwise, the Republicans always play the submissive masochists but the Dems are bi-swingers, happy to flay the GOP as either (a) uptight prudes or (b) pedophile enablers, according to what suits. What would have been consistent in both narratives is the assumption by the Democrats, the media and the Gay Page Tip-Line end of the Republican Party is that the electorate is stupid. In the sense that there's any "child abuse" going on here, the American people are being treated like children and abused by the politico-media class.

And this one from Jonah Goldberg at NRO:
But it is fair to say liberals aren’t thinking things through. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel suggested this week that the mere fact Foley is gay should have “raised questions” about his friendships with pages. If Foley were a Democrat and GOP spinners suggested gays are automatically suspect as predators, the now-silent Human Rights Campaign and other gay rights groups would go ballistic.

What liberals don’t understand is that social conservatives actually believe their moral rhetoric, even when it’s politically inconvenient. That’s why GOP Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisiana had to resign when his marital infidelities became public during the Clinton impeachment, much to the chagrin of Democrats who wanted to advance the “everybody does it” defense of President Clinton. And that’s why vast numbers of social conservatives now want Speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s head on a pike.

Meanwhile, the only moral lapse that reliably and consistently offends all liberals collectively is hypocrisy. As Howard Dean declared on Meet the Press last year: “Everybody has ethical shortcomings. We ought not to lecture each other about our ethical shortcomings.” But he continued: “I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy.” This is a remarkably convenient principle insofar as it can indict only people with actual principles.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler