Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Classic Rove
Washington Post ^ | July 13, 2005 | Harold Meyerson

Posted on 07/13/2005 3:52:53 AM PDT by ricks_place

Now Karl Rove has become "fair game."

That was the term that the president's consigliere applied to Valerie Plame, according to Newsweek, in a conversation with MSNBC's Chris Matthews immediately after the publication of Robert D. Novak's column that identified Plame as a CIA operative. And, of course, Plame was fair game: Her identity was a tool to discredit, however obliquely, the report from her husband, Joe Wilson, that the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger was a bunch of hooey....

And becoming Karl Rove's fair game means you're in for a bumpy ride. .... He's also the kind of ethically unconstrained guy Bush has wanted around when the going gets tough -- when the case Bush is making is unconvincing on its own merits, when he needs to divert attention from himself with a stunning attack on somebody else....

You can go pretty far with this kind of modus operandi, particularly if the press is complaisant. Sometimes, you can go too far, as Joe McCarthy discovered when he leveled his woozy allegations against the Army. ....

And it's not just Rove who's been caught up in the coverup. Looking like no one so much as Ron Ziegler, Nixon's press guy, in the middle of Watergate, Bush press secretary Scott McClellan was one beleaguered boychik on Monday ....

Or did he? There's no basis to conclude that if Rove was the guy who outed Plame, he told his boss about it. .... Though we can't be certain it was Rove who disclosed Plame's identity, we can be damned sure that if he did, it was all in a day's work on behalf of George W. Bush....

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: cialeak
Harold Meyerson is "fair game" for Accuracy In Media

How to Label Harold Meyerson
By Julian Tepper  |  October 14, 2004

"John Kerry may be the most die-hard of liberals or a charter member of the Flip-Flop Hall of Fame—but he can't be both."

The Washington Post publishes weekly Op-Ed page pieces by Harold Meyerson. Is it wrong to wonder "why"? The newspaper strives for a national, if not a world presence, so may I ask just what is it that Meyerson brings to the table to merit such an opportunity? After reading and thinking about several of his columns, and noting a consistent lack of logic and profundity, I am still in a quandary. Could it be simply his politics?

His column of yesterday (October 13; Labels That Don't Stick) is a good example of what he is without. He starts off with a meandering muse about the President's switch from commenting on Kerry as a "flip-flopper" to pointing out that he is the most liberal senator of them all, a switch that he attributes to the two most despised-by-the-Democrats bete noires, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove.

Meyerson asserts that "John Kerry may be the most die-hard of liberals or a charter member of the Flip-Flop Hall of Fame—but he can't be both"? Why not? Because, opines, Meyerson, "[d]ie-Hard Liberals don't flip-flop." From this proclamation he segues into the remaining four-fifths of his article by applying it, in a manner most undecipherable, to yet another, that Kerry's idea of a health plan does not lead to a government bureaucracy that is massive.

At the domestic-issues debate last evening, the President and Kerry of course spoke about health care, and made their differences somewhat clear. Meyerson's predictions on how that portion of the debate would go were (except for the obvious point of federal government involvement) off the mark. But, no matter; predicting behavior is always a chancy enterprise. I'd like, instead, to deal with Meyerson's opening, the foundation of the rest of his piece.

First, I'd like to know the basis for his assertion that a die-hard liberal cannot engage in flip-floppery. Let's look first to the essence of each of those shorthand labels? We can argue about details and nuances, but I put it to you that one who is a die-hard liberal looks overwhelmingly to the government for problem-solving, and thinks it right, regardless of the effect on private business, to impose taxes to pay for the costs attendant to that political approach.

And, what is flip-floppery? Well, I think we can all agree that a person who has a penchant for saying different things on the same issue at different times or to different sets of people, and who does this to get enough votes to win an election, is a flip-flopper. (Note that I do not associate the term with constantly changing one's mind. I don't think that mind-changing is involved, at all. Rather, the flip-floppery that I define is characteristic of a person whose core is not comprised of values, whatever they may be, but consists of only wanting to get elected.)

So, then, why is it not possible for John Kerry to be both a die-hard liberal and a flip-flopper? Meyerson's "proof" comprises only the naming of four supposed die-hard liberals (Wellstone, T. Kennedy, Gruening and Sumner) who did not flip-flop on the issues associated with them. Meyerson may have thus demonstrated that a die-hard liberal need not be a flip-flopper; but, he came nowhere near establishing that a die-hard liberal cannot be one.

There are a host of labels by which one could characterize Meyerson's so-called thought pieces. Those that come immediately to mind include, among others, space-consuming, inane, fatuous, mindless, vacuous and characterless. Useful labels? Does the word, "glue," suggest itself?

1 posted on 07/13/2005 3:52:53 AM PDT by ricks_place
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

The press thinks they are re-living Watergate. Let them fantasize for a while. Keeps them busy.


2 posted on 07/13/2005 4:11:03 AM PDT by stinkerpot65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
Were Rove and Bush not "public figures" this could easily be libelous.

It employs a liberal favorite, a variation of "It may not be true but it could be." and "There is no evidence. That is exactly why we need to investigate this." Throw it out there, flog it to death, do a poll to see what "the people" think, and then use that as validation of why we need to get rid of the target.
3 posted on 07/13/2005 4:20:20 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

Here is the quintessence of the ad hominem attack, i.e., appealing to one's emotions and prejudices rather than one's intellect. Forty years ago this is the sort of thing that would have been laughed out of the newsroom of any newspaper of quality. Today it is probably considered de rigueur at the Columbia, Missouri and Berkeley schools of journalism.


4 posted on 07/13/2005 4:24:51 AM PDT by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

I agree...while they are frothing over this non-issue, something big is going on behind the curtain, and they will totally miss it. It happens repeatedly and Rove always wins, thus validating the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.


5 posted on 07/13/2005 4:25:09 AM PDT by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

I read on the thread here the other day that even Bob Woodward (on Larry King) thought the press was getting carried away on this whole Rove thing.


6 posted on 07/13/2005 4:30:24 AM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
One of the strangest things I have ever read.This would get a failing grade for an elementary term paper.
In a nutshell he says Rove may not have done anything wrong but as with any conservative he is evil.
Every word that this moron writes smacks of the great buzzword "McCarthyism" that he is obligated to throw in.
7 posted on 07/13/2005 4:36:06 AM PDT by carlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman
I read on the thread here the other day that even Bob Woodward (on Larry King) thought the press was getting carried away on this whole Rove thing.

That's why we should encourage them.

Have you noticed how America is not going to the movies now that Hollywood has gotten increasingly left-strident?

Same thing for elections.

Let them become utterly strident, and we shall win -- not that it seems to matter, for our side tends to vote in more spending and more rights-restrictions as quickly as their side does -- but nonetheless, and for what it is worth, we shall win.

8 posted on 07/13/2005 4:41:20 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Now Karl Rove has become "fair game."

Now? When was he not fair game for them?

9 posted on 07/13/2005 4:58:28 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
That was the term that the president's consigliere...

Geesh, they can't even get through the first sentence without name-calling.

10 posted on 07/13/2005 5:00:22 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Great post, I agree 100%.


11 posted on 07/13/2005 5:22:32 AM PDT by jveritas (The left cannot win a national election ever again and never will the Buchananites and 3rd parties)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Puppage

I saw a lefty blog yesterday that compared GHWB to Vito Corleone, Dubya to Sonny, Jeb to Michael, and Neal to Fredo. Disgusting.


12 posted on 07/13/2005 5:24:24 AM PDT by balch3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I might disagree...
The MSM could be 1000000% wrong but still print they are
right.

Look at the reporting of how "smart" Skerry was
Turns out he was a "c" student- after a year of
my 2 local papers constantly harping-on the front
page and in editorials (From the editor and write-in's)
as to the superior intellect of Skerry any retraction?
nope- they still call Bush stupid.-
Rove could be exonerated (I personally think the leak
source was Wilson) but you will never get a retraction.

Rove will be constantly persecuted as "Evil"
just as bush was "stupid" only forums like this have
a give and take of ideas-simple reporting-who,what,when
where, and why. the MSM has an agenda- to defeat repubs-
really, to defeat freedom because of the editors and
"reporters" they currently have on staff were brought
up in their journalistic careers as socialist's maybe even
as Marxist's.

So, I would like to see the MSM changed- by us/ because
of us, at Freerepublic and other blogs - get rid of the
Rather's, the Helen Thomas's etc. -show them for what they
really are: ANTI American defeatist's wishing for an all
encompassing Socialistic society.
13 posted on 07/13/2005 5:30:06 AM PDT by mj1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65; All

It seems very clear now that Rove was not Judith Miller's source; and from that the possibilities are that either her actual source, or she herself, was Novak's source.

Rove gave Fitzgerald a general waiver for "anyone he talked to" concerning the Wilson stuff, releasing them from any confidentiality requirement on his part; MORE THAN A YEAR AGO.

You get two things from that. Cooper's recent statement's that only now was he free to reveal his source are just bunk. He was free to reveal Rove's name more than a year ago. Why didn't he. Read his email to his bosses concerning his conversation with Rove. First, he lied about why he wanted to talk to Rove - said it was about medicare, and before the call ended he finally got to the real subject of his call - Wilson. And Rove's comments? He clearly was not trying to "out" Wilson's wife as a way to get back at Wilson. He was warning Cooper that the story from Wilson was much weaker that it looked; that neither the VP or DCIA had even known about Wilson's trip, much less sanctioned it; that it was Wilson's own wife who had recommended him and that Wilson's report did not change the intelligence community's view of Iraq's attempts to purchase yellow cake in Niger. Trying to "out" Wilson's wife? No; trying to tell Cooper the story was weak.

One last point about Wilson and yellow cake. The media plays this out as if Wilson was sent to Niger to "get confirmation that Iraq had tried to purchase yellow cake in Niger". He was not. He was not briefed on all the intelligence concerning Iraq's attempts to purchase yellow cake in Niger. He was asked to do one thing; to find out if certain documents which purported to indicate a Iraqi attempt to purchase yellow cake were authentic. That was all he was asked to do. And how did he do that? He spent about 90% of his time at his Hotel and he had a couple conversations with a couple former Niger government officials - end of research. As was reported by the congressional investigations - the intelligence communities assessement of Iraqi attempts to purchase yellow cake were not changed by Wilson's "report".

Now back to Judith Miller. So, if Rove was her source then she got the same waiver from Rove as Cooper. Since she still will not reveal her source, it's very unlikely that her source was Rove.

What seems increasingly likely is that her and/or her bosses are protecting another source. Why? Well if she was Novak's source, then her source was Novak's source. And what if her source was some State Department friend of Wilson, or even Wilson himself. Then Miller and the New York Times would have their own Rathergate. They would have conspired to "leak" Wilson's wife's name to Novak, let him do the story (Judith Miller did not herself print a story on the issue then) and then gin up the mainstream media into accepting the false notion that the White House had let out the name to embarass Wilson.

Now I believe that Novak did say the source was a very high official. What if Judith Miller's source was Colin Powell?

Well then Bush has already fulfilled his promise to sack the leaker.


14 posted on 07/13/2005 6:04:15 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
Plame was fair game: Her identity was a tool to discredit, however obliquely, the report from her husband, Joe Wilson, that the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger was a bunch of hooey....

This moron can't even make it through the first full paragraph without passing on a long discredited lie without mentioning the truth of the matter. I can handle liberal slant, but this is Pravda-style propaganda.

15 posted on 07/13/2005 6:16:12 AM PDT by EricT. (Join the Soylent Green Party...We recycle dead environmentalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaspar; ricks_place
"Here is the quintessence of the ad hominem attack, i.e., appealing to one's emotions and prejudices rather than one's intellect."

But, of course, that sort of tactic only works with emotionally immature mentalities (regardless of their "IQ"). Even if such emotionally unstable ones took a course in Critical Thinking, it wouldn't do them any good because they don't have the courage to face reality and truth - they just won't "go there".

16 posted on 07/13/2005 6:21:31 AM PDT by Matchett-PI ("Certain things, if not seen as lovely or detestable, are not being correctly seen at all." ~Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wuli


Rove gave Fitzgerald a general waiver for "anyone he talked to" concerning the Wilson stuff, releasing them from any confidentiality requirement on his part; MORE THAN A YEAR AGO.

You get two things from that. Cooper's recent statement's that only now was he free to reveal his source are just bunk. He was free to reveal Rove's name more than a year ago. Why didn't he. Read his email to his bosses concerning his conversation with Rove. First, he lied about why he wanted to talk to Rove - said it was about medicare, and before the call ended he finally got to the real subject of his call - Wilson. And Rove's comments? He clearly was not trying to "out" Wilson's wife as a way to get back at Wilson. He was warning Cooper that the story from Wilson was much weaker that it looked; that neither the VP or DCIA had even known about Wilson's trip, much less sanctioned it; that it was Wilson's own wife who had recommended him and that Wilson's report did not change the intelligence community's view of Iraq's attempts to purchase yellow cake in Niger. Trying to "out" Wilson's wife? No; trying to tell Cooper the story was weak.

One last point about Wilson and yellow cake. The media plays this out as if Wilson was sent to Niger to "get confirmation that Iraq had tried to purchase yellow cake in Niger". He was not. He was not briefed on all the intelligence concerning Iraq's attempts to purchase yellow cake in Niger. He was asked to do one thing; to find out if certain documents which purported to indicate a Iraqi attempt to purchase yellow cake were authentic. That was all he was asked to do. And how did he do that? He spent about 90% of his time at his Hotel and he had a couple conversations with a couple former Niger government officials - end of research. As was reported by the congressional investigations - the intelligence communities assessement of Iraqi attempts to purchase yellow cake were not changed by Wilson's "report".
---->

Three paragraphs worth repeating from your very excellent post.
`


17 posted on 07/13/2005 7:53:56 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

I had a liberal tell me that this will not only lead to Rove going to jail, but lead to the impeachment of both the President and vice president.


18 posted on 07/13/2005 10:16:34 AM PDT by mouser (run the rats out its the only hope we have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mouser

They're living a fantasy. Remember all the Clinton scandals? How much did they really hurt Clinton? A lot of Republicans pinned their hopes on scandals because they couldn't beat Clinton politically.


Same with the Plame deal. The Dems are weak and desperate and have nowhere else to go.


19 posted on 07/13/2005 10:34:43 AM PDT by stinkerpot65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EricT.
Who is a moron? It's not his fault you can't keep up.

The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.

Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.

The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.

Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.

Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents.

FactCheck.org
20 posted on 07/13/2005 10:58:09 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stinkerpot65

I watched Joe Scarborough interview Peter King about this RATmedia scam and both were totally clueless particularly Joe. He obviously doesn't know the real story and King was incapable of telling him. Neither seemed to have the slightest understanding that Valerie the Valient was NOT a secret agent, was NOT outed and the incident had NOTHING to do with endangering National Security.

It was infuriating and pitiful.


21 posted on 07/13/2005 11:02:52 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

The only restriction of "rights" has been restricting the ability of terrorists to operate with zero constraints. Now there are minimal constraints. Although our friends at DU are horribly upset at the fascist direction Hitler II has led the nation in.


22 posted on 07/13/2005 11:05:51 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EricT.

Pravda style propaganda is all you will get from the RATmedia. See 21.


23 posted on 07/13/2005 11:09:54 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: balch3

I have been fighting all day in a college forum over this same topic. The left has gone loony.


24 posted on 07/13/2005 11:11:34 AM PDT by JFC ( President Bush, You are being prayed for along with our country daily, by millions of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
The only restriction of "rights" has been restricting the ability of terrorists to operate with zero constraints.

I, too, was alarmed at how those terrorists would influence elections by buying advertisements 60 days before an election. I'm glad Campaign Finance Reform put an end to this terrorist activity.

Furthermore, the way that terrorists were buying houses and preventing development was seriously jeopardizing tax revenues! I'm glad that the Supreme Court gave us new Eminent Domain tools to thwart these heinous terrorists.

Nope, not one right of ours has been restricted. It's all been aimed at the terrorists!!!

25 posted on 07/13/2005 11:28:23 AM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
And it was at that point that I stopped reading this article.
26 posted on 07/13/2005 11:33:55 AM PDT by chs68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
What the heck are you raving about? Maybe you misread what I posted

I said: the report from her husband, Joe Wilson, that the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger was a bunch of hooey....

Was Wilson's claim that the Bush administration lied about Hussein trying to buy uranium false or not? Everything I heard (outside of the MSM) was that Wilson is a lying sack of crap.

27 posted on 07/13/2005 11:37:17 AM PDT by EricT. (Join the Soylent Green Party...We recycle dead environmentalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EricT.
Sorry, I meant to say that Meyerson wrote: "the report from her husband, Joe Wilson, that the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger was a bunch of hooey...." , not me.

I'm maintaining that Wilson is a lying sack of crap, and Meyerson is repeating something that ain't true.

28 posted on 07/13/2005 11:42:27 AM PDT by EricT. (Join the Soylent Green Party...We recycle dead environmentalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

CFR is one of the most ineffective laws ever passed and had zero impact on anyone that wasn't an idiot. Personally I like laws that restrict idiots and think we need more of them. That should eliminate ALL democrat ads.

As for eminent domain goes who thought the Fifth amendment of the US constitution applied to states' ability to take land. That has always been a state and local issue. And Felo is a good thing since it will spur reforms of the abuses the states and locals have gotten away with for decades. If you cannot control your local politicians there is NO chance to control national ones.

Neither of these issues has ANY relation to terrorism.


29 posted on 07/13/2005 12:28:53 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Watching someone justify and minimize the current dismantling of the Bill of Rights is always a breathtaking exercise.


30 posted on 07/13/2005 12:37:34 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Geesh, they can't even get through the first sentence without name-calling.

con·si·glie·re Audio pronunciation of "consigliere" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kns-lyr) n. pl. con·si·glie·ri (-r)

An adviser or counselor, especially to a capo or leader of an organized crime syndicate.

Yup.

31 posted on 07/13/2005 12:43:20 PM PDT by Lizavetta (Let not your heart be troubled.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot
a variation of "It may not be true but it could be." and "There is no evidence. That is exactly why we need to investigate this."

Don't forget the ol' "it's the seriousness of the charges that are so worrisome."

32 posted on 07/13/2005 12:45:33 PM PDT by Lizavetta (Let not your heart be troubled.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta

Thanks, I did forget that favorite. I guess I need to start keeping a list. They have so many nonsensical ways to accuse.


33 posted on 07/13/2005 12:58:17 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: chs68
And it was at that point that I stopped reading this article

That makes two of us!

34 posted on 07/13/2005 12:59:02 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

A year from now, the only thing people will remember about this is how ridiculous and petty the Democrats are. The Republicans are the big boys who fight terrorists, cut taxes, and solve problems.

The Democrats whine and pout.


35 posted on 07/13/2005 2:49:28 PM PDT by stinkerpot65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

There has been no dismantling of the BoR. Nothing even close. Laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater don't and neither have any recently enacted. Rhetoric and exaggerations are not particularly convincing.


36 posted on 07/14/2005 2:38:55 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
There has been no dismantling of the BoR.

We have diametrically opposing viewpoints.

37 posted on 07/14/2005 4:12:26 PM PDT by Lazamataz (Looks like the Supreme Court wants to play Cowboys and Homeowners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

You are viewing things which are not there. In fact, CFR essentially affects political parties which have no political rights in the first place. It takes exactly ZERO rights from individuals as the Swift boat vets clearly demonstrated last fall.


38 posted on 07/14/2005 10:41:21 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
In fact, CFR essentially affects political parties which have no political rights in the first place.

Parties have the right to free assembly and speech.

39 posted on 07/15/2005 3:21:11 AM PDT by jmc813 ("Small-government conservative" is a redundancy, and "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jmc813

That is fine but they are also subject to the rules regarding federal elections which Congress establishs and that includes funding and spending rules. Parties were anathema to the Founding Fathers who called them factions. There was almost universal contempt for factions among the Founders until Jefferson formed his anti-Hamilton party, the democrat republicans.

Those who were foolish enough to believe the USSC would overturn CFR were mightly disappointed. Those who knew that it would not merely went around CFR as I predicted that they would. CFR affects ONLY idiots as the actions of the 527s clearly showed.


40 posted on 07/16/2005 11:13:17 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson