No "Rove is a Fuckhead Slime" thread?

Someone point me in the right direction, please, it HAS to be here already. Right??

Well, until I find it, I’d just like to say this: I don’t mind a bit what he said, and it’s even BETTER that the white house is supporting it. Because, while there is a segment of the American public that will slavishly slurp up and cheer anything this adminstration shits out its ass, the majority of Americans are reasonbly intelligent, decent human beings. And Rove and his minions seem to think that the right way to operate is to become more slimy, lie bigger, be more outrageously vile than they have already been.

Keep it up, guys.
Please don’t apologize, not the least bit necessary.

Carry on!

Link to what he said?? Please??

There is such a thread … it was placed in GQ, for some reason.

OK, here it is.


It was a stupid thing to say. Rove is doing the talk show circuit lately, and that’s a big mistake for the Republicans. He’s much more effective operating behind the scenes.

But note that some Dems are demanding that he apologize or resign. If every politician (and he’s not even really a politician) had to resign whenever (s)he said something stupid, the government would empty out in days. On the other hand, that might not be such a bad idea after all…!!!

Not for at least a couple weeks now. Thanks for stepping up and filling the gap, Stoid. Even if the way you’ve filled it is kinda stupid.

If you wanna post a rant, post a rant. What the fuck is this? Start a thread asking if the topic already exists?

No “Water is wet” thread either. HMMM, I wonder why that is?

Iraq’s going in the crapper. Time to find a scapegoat.

“We woulda won the war if it hadn’t been for the Liberaaaaaaals … !”

Hey, Karl Shithead, you woulda won the war if you’d sent the troops General Shinseki asked for and put more than five minutes into planning the occupation.

You fucked up and now we’re all screwed. You could at least have the balls to own up to your incompetence.

Thanks for linking bordelund, I jsut foolishly assumed dopers would know.

but I’ll quote fr those who don’t want to bother:

Beelzebub said:

“Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. [Conservatives] saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.”

Press Minion Scotty:

"White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday there was no reason for Rove to apologize because he was “simply pointing out the different philosophies when it comes to winning the war on terrorism.”

“Of course not,” McClellan said when asked by reporters whether Bush would ask Rove to apologize.

We’re not screwed. At least, compared to the Iraqi’s, we’re not screwed… They’re screwed. We still have a stable government, power, water, law & order, SUV’s, American Idol, etc.

Ah, but Rove is deviously clever. Note that he said “liberals” and not “democrats”. Why should Hillary , for example, be offended by what he said if she isn’t a “liberal”?

Thanks, Stoid.

Now we know what Repugs were really trying to hide when they ratcheted their poisonous rhetoric about some innocent comments on Gulag and Pol Pot by some innocent Democrats. They were simply covering their ass.

(Ass = Rove, get it? Har!)

And as you can see from that last item, our screwing is already gradually starting…

So what’s the big deal? Or, more accurately why does this quote seem to get the dander up so much on the left side of the aisle?

Granted, I’m a conservative, so to me this sounds fairly accurate, if somewhat simplistic. But, ultimately this is a throwaway line by Rove that would be quickly forgotten if the other side didn’t make such a big deal out of it. I guess it’s kind of like a religious group going on and on about boycotting something that’s not very popular, only to give it more attention ultimately leading to a growth in popularity.

Democratic outcry over this only serves to bring attention to a comment that doesn’t have a heck of a lot of meaning anyway. Right? Or am I completely missing something here.

Also, doesn’t the outcry over this fairly innocuous statement bring up a hypocritical issue the left will have to deal with? Rove making a poor point is cause for great alarm while Durbin’s Nazi comparitive speech (as overblown as it might have been) earned barely a peep.

I have got to be missing something, because otherwise it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

The idiot spokesman for the White House said on Today that Rove was specifically talking about, not about Democrats. An interesting spin, since started as a bipartisan group in 1998 to “move on” past the Clinton impeachment proceedings. They didn’t become really blatantly partisan until about 2003 in their protests against the Iraq War and their somewhat strident efforts to defeat Bush in '04. The White House’s attempt to spin this as Rove speaking out solely against this organization is just more lying bullshit from an administration that doesn’t know how to do anything else.

Who said she isn’t a liberal? What would be your point here, John?

A broken Iraq is very bad for us. More terrorism. Regional instability. Higher oil prices. Recession. Huge budget deficits. An overextended army.

This is a way bigger fuck-up than Vietnam.

It has been suggested in one or several of libblogs that Rove’s statement is a calculated effort to distract attention from the facts and focus attention on the personalities.

It has no negative effect on the Bushiviks base of true believers, as it reflects an opinion they already share. It has no effect on the reality-based community for similar reasons. But every moment that the tedia are absorbed with who said what about who is another moment not focused on the Downing St. Smoking Memo, the utter failure of GeeDubya’s attempt to gut SocSec, and the apparent non-existence of his alleged “political capital”.

That said, Rove is, of course, a soft pudgy embodiment of everything that is wrong with us, the Pillsbury Deathboy. The people who used to gaze upon him with awe and admiration now pass the halls muttering darkly, clutching the latest grim poll news in their trembling mitts.

It’s a hard rain’s gonna fall, and it couldn’t happen to a more deserving pustule.

Woah–that seems to be taking it a bit far. It seems that, in terms of human suffering, we aren’t anywhere near the level of Vietnam yet. Would you disagree, or do you place more importance on economic factors in this particular case?