Two additional years of Buggergate?
You misspelled Masturgate.
If that ain’t a license to just make up any old shit you want, then I don’t know what is. Rove = bad, so anything bad that is said about him must be true. Any other truism we need to know about, because that will sure cut a lot of these silly political debates short!
Not a random blog, John. The official blog of The New Republic. And not somethign from a random contributor, but an article by a staffer. See the difference?
I agree, it was a tremendous mistake by Rove to pressure Foley to stay on. I am doing the happy dance, but with divided feelings. I’m glad the Foley mess is screwing over the Pubbies. I kinda wish the whistle had been blown on Foley a lot earlier, though.
Last sentence could have been worded a bit better, Ev. Lot of filthy, twisted minds around here. Some of our best.
Oh, it’s an official blog. Is that suppose to make a difference?
We all do. But there is no evidence that Rove knew about the page stuff, and there isn’t anything illigal about convincing a Congresscritter to run again. Maybe there should be, but that’s another topic. 
And… if he did know about the page issue, Rove’s smart enough to usher the guy out while that stuff stays out of the headlines, and get someone else in. If anything, I think the idea that he pressured Foley to stay on speaks to Rove not knowing about the page stuff.
I have to agree with John on this one. The fact that Rove asked Foley to run for another term is not evidence that he was aware of or responsible for Foley’s sexual activities.
Completely illogical. A republican mastermind of the party knew. He is reputed to be the brains behind the party. Therefore the dems knew. .Does not follow. I would be much more likely to believe Rove knew that Dems did.
As thoroughly despicable and reprehensible as Rove is, I’m not sure he’s all that tight with the House leadership. I think it’s possible that Rove knew about Foley by way of Hastert and his henchmen, but it’s also possible that he didn’t. I have no problem believing that he put pressure on Foley to run again on the grounds that the more incumbents run, the easier it is to hold the seat and I think he would do so whether he knew or not. If he knew, he might figure that it wouldn’t surface until after the election, in which case he could resign and have Jeb Bush appoint a friendly replacement. If he didn’t know, then it’s quite believable that he’d try to persuade Foley to run again. So it boils down to whether he was surprised at the story in general or that it came out before the election.
The Democratic Congressmen should have known. They should have been told. Testimony so far is that they were not told. (Except for the pages who were participating in the Clinton-Soros-Moore conspiracy in alliance to the Gay Agenda…of course, they knew!)
Nah. It’s the gay assistant’s mafia who kept it under wraps all by themselves. Lloyd!!!
All right guys, follow me on this one. What assignment did you think Rove got immediately after securing the White House for Bush in 2004? Had to have been hang on to the Pubbie majorities in the House and Senate so Bush wouldn’t find himself fighting Congress in the last two years of his Presidency. Very prudent, considering what the Bushies have been up to. And of course the first thing Rove would have done is dig up all the dirt there was to be had on all the members of Congress, and if you don’t think Foley’s weakness for pages didn’t wind up at or near the top of the pile (I’m sure it’s a big, stinky pile) then you just aren’t thinking. Rove HAD to know, it was part of his job, and he’s very good at his job.
OK, so as I understand it your evidence is: an “official” blog writer claims that a friend of Foley told him that Foley told the friend that Rove told Foley?
Rock solid. Hand the bastard.
Alternatively, you might be thinking too much?
And again, if he was good at his job he would have quietly ushered Foley out and brought someone else in. Foley wanted out (no pun intended), and his is one of the safest districts around-- some of the best gerrymandering that money can buy. You are making up things to support your thesis and ignoring actual facts that undermine it.
OK Dr. Evil. I’ve got a better theory. You see, Bush wants to get out of Iraq, but he needs a way to blame it on the Democrats. So, this is the evil plot that he and Rove hatched: Rove knows about Foley and his page fetish, and he is the guy who leaks the stuff about Foley to ABC. ABC is that friendly network, remember, since it played The Path to 9/11. This scandal is the tipping point that makes the Republicans lose both houses of Congress. But that’s OK, because that’s all part of the (evil) plan. After the election, Bush goes on national TV and says: “My fellow Americans. The Democrats in Congress are demanding that I bring the troops home. Even though it’s against my better judgement, I will bow to their desires. As I am speaking to you now, all 140,000 troops are packing up and will be home by Christmas.” Iraq then errupts into a full-blown civil war, splitting into 3 entities. The Sunni entity elects Osama bin Laden as it’s new president and the Republican campaign strategy for 2008 is set: We Told You So!!
Wasn’t that a plot line from Pinky and the Brain?
By the way, what is this obsession with finding Karl Rove’s fingerprints on absolutely anything that happens to anyone ever? Is it just maybe possible that something screwed-up could happen in Washington without it being a Rove manipulation?
Nothing wrong with citing a blog. You might note the author’s name at the bottom. What’s wrong with citing this particular blog article is that the article doesn’t identify the source.
But what do we know about the jouranlistic standards that the blogger is held to? That’s what we need to know. AFAICT, it’s just an editorial. The fact that it’s attached to New Republic means… what? That rag isn’t exactly known for objective journalism any more than it’s righty cousin, National Review is. Both are magazines pushing an agenda. Can you imagine the OP’s response to a thread started from a National Reivew article (a real article, even, not some blog)? It would’ve been dismissed as partisan blather.
Yeah, but both are reasonably well-respected publications that are widely considered to adhere to at least minimal standards of journalistic credibility. (The New Republic* is hardly a lefty rag these days, btw; it is generally considered neoliberal and aligns with DLC-type, moderate/centrist-Democrat policies.)
What concerns me about citing an editorial or op-ed piece is not the political ideology of its parent publication, but the lack of information it provides about its sources, as Quartz already pointed out.
But if you’re complaining that the OP is being too biased and partisan, then you shouldn’t allow his views on journalistic credibility to define yours. Race to the bottom, and all that.
Back to the OT: While I think Rove is loathsome and amoral, I don’t see why anyone would expect the Administration to get rid of him as Deputy Chief of Staff as long as he remains loyal to the President and achieves the results he’s tasked with. Other administrations have also retained slimy cronies who happened to be useful. “How bad it has to get” is for Rove to become a political liability instead of an asset to the White House, and I don’t see what would cause that to happen. The people who object strongly to Rove’s slimeballery are already anti-Bush.