Agreed. There are three possible ways this could develop.
The story is false. Rove denies everything and accuse liberals of making up lies to attack him because he’s a conservative. Conservatives believe Rove.
The story is true. Rove denies everything and accuse liberals of making up lies to attack him because he’s a conservative. Conservatives believe Rove.
The story is true. Rove admits it’s true and says he now supports gay marriage so he and Akbar can wed.
#1 and #2 work out pretty much the same and I’d rank #3 as an outlier.
The Arabic-name part matters because Rove rose to fame and infamy as the brains behind a neocon warhawk administration which, if it did not actually demonize Arabs/Muslims as such, certainly benefited from RWs doing so and did not discourage them. Both parts matter because they undermine Rove’s credibility with the RW base.
A Theocon’s holy and pious
But it seems that his judgment is biased
By his mind filled with floods
Of the cries of hung studs:
“Come into the closet and try us!”
Simpson has claimed for years that she had close ties to Rove, including that Rove ordered her to get pictures of Siegelman cheating on his wife and that she once attended a KKK meeting undercover at Rove’s behest. I don’t think she’s ever been able to substantiate any of these claims, or even that she ever worked for the Republican party, other than her own assertions. It will be interesting to see if she comes forward with anything to back this claim up.
If she’s lying, then Karl Rove is the victim of a false and malicious rumor, meant to undermine his reputation, that now will spread virally and unstoppably through the blogosphere and by email-spam.
Only if assholes work hard enough at spreading the lie, even though they know it’s false.
Of course one would have to be a pretty contemptible scumbag to do something like that. I mean, come on - what kind of hypocrite would condemn Rove for doing things, and then turn around and do exactly the same thing?
One would really have to be a two-faced, lying shit head to do something as low as that.
I know that on the SDMB, liberals have been known to claim that they are better people than conservatives, so I am sure nobody hereabouts would do anything as ugly as spreading rumors about their opponents via e-mail or the blogosphere.
Not knowing or caring anything about Rove’s personal life, I’m just curious - has he made public anti-gay statements? I was under the impression he was more of a behind-the-scenes-strategist kinda guy.
Could be mis-remembering, but I seem to recall that Rove always opposed the Republicans rhetoric on the gay issue (IIRC, and ironically, so did Chaney and Bush himself was uncomfortable with a lot of the over the top rhetoric). I think on this issue you have a big difference between the fundie Republicans and, say, the neo-Cons who were more interest in how they looked when flying in their cape or stopping bullets with an upraised hand.
As much as I’d personally like to see that tub of gelatinous goo named Karl Rove rendered in a large cauldron and made into Christmas Elf Candles - I gotta say I don’t have a recollection of him, or W, pushing the anti-gay rhetoric. I’ve always seen W at least as gay-OK. But obviously they weren’t going to argue with their fundie supporters about it.
As for the “swarthy Arab” dog-whistle, again remember the pictures of W holding hands with his Saudi buddies? As much as the grass-roots morons thinks we’re against all Arabs, the W administration went to great lengths to parse that out in public comments.
So, I’m not seeing any hypocrisy angle in this.
That said - yeah, my gaydar pinged on Rove from the start…
I agree, quite honestly. Vicious gossip (and make no mistake, whether it’s false, as it almost certainly is, or true, it’s vicious) is a far cry from a great debate.
:roll eyes: If you think anyone believes that that is your motivation for this steaming pile, I doubt you’re right. Even those who will pat you on the back.
