Posted on 09/14/2010 9:04:44 PM PDT by STARWISE
Karl Rove -Sean Hannity, Discussing Christine O'Donnell + 2010 Election
Mike Castle is a dinosaur and a complete RINO!
Shame on you, Karl .. thank you, Hannity for giving the fair and balanced view and standing up for what you know ! Woo boy .. there's gonna be some big changes coming. We're taking our country back!
I saw this real time. I think, even Hannity was a little taken aback. Sean was, for the first time I know, politely critical of Rove.
He lost me when he called Christine’s win “inexplicable”... how out of touch can he be.
— Now we know .... it’s still about the good ole boys club after all, not the American people. Very eye opening and disappointing. And he probably wasn’t happy about Sarah Palin’s endorsement and robo call
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Michael_Castle.htm
but
the Delaware voters spoke tonight .. Woo Hoo!
Cornyn and Steele and any others who ARE or are acting like RINOs better be really careful.
Well...we know who Rove worked for...the Bush family. The daddy and son who prepared the way for Nobama.
I’m so stunned he would stoop so low .. truly.
He’s dropped down 1000 pegs in my book tonight .. never thought he would something like this that could make me say that or feel that way.
Big lesson learned ..
OOOOps .. here’s Sarah’s endorsement
http://www.palintv.com/2010/09/13/governor-palin-records-radio-ad-for-christine-odonnell/
Goodbye Karl. You just showed your colors. You claim to be an expert on elections and yet you fail to understand the basic fundamental of “we the people”. The people have spoken. He is a party elitist.
Goodbye Karl. You just showed your colors. You claim to be an expert on elections and yet you fail to understand the basic fundamental of “we the people”. The people have spoken. He is a party elitist.
Bull-oney .. on that one!
Jaw dropping, eye opening, stunning in all that it revealed about Rove. He should be ashamed.
Hey Karl, see this? (pointing at my ass). You can kiss me right here in Macy’s Department Store Window in Thanksgiving Day!
I just wrote Rove to say that he has lost all of my respect and I won’t be watching him ever again.
He can take his “white board’ and shove it.
Yet he's convinced that Christine is too "nutty" to win.
We shall see. Perhaps Rove knows something that the Dems will use against her which is not apparent right now.
But tonight at least it seems like O'Donnell can win.
Did I see a big, curved horn begin to sprout from Karl Rove’s forehead?
Just one comment about Rove...JUDAS!
Rove, you despicable bastard.
Yeah, Hannity may finally have to question himself a little for giving SO MUCH facetime to Rove for the past several years/ Rove and the Republican Establishment are all wearing
these long, sobered-up faces, as it dawns on them that they simply have NOT understood the power of what is finally establishing itself as a Tea Party majority, to whom this abstraction of “electability” SIMPLY DOES NOT MATTER>
I love seeing them get their comeuppance:they’ve proved that their overwhelming guiding priciple is simply to keep pushing the Republican “brand”, no matter what, and it doesn’t matter to them whether their Republican choices are virtually Democrats. I can’t wait to see her win in November, though that’s certainly far from guaranteed.
There is something extremely stale about Karl Rove. It's almost rotten. I can smell it through the television set.
Really ..
___________________________________________________________
American Spectator
AmSpecBlog
Powerline Gets it Wrong; Levin, Riehl Right on Castle
By Jeffrey Lord on 9.14.10 @ 5:35PM
###
I have to say I’m amused at the scurrying by Castle supporters on the discovery that Castle voted to support sending the Dennis Kucinich-sponsored Bush impeachment resolution to the House Judiciary Committee.
The folks at Powerline are somewhere other than reading their own posts. Here’s what they say:
Was a vote for this referral resolution tantamount to a vote to impeach President Bush, as Dan Riehl and, reportedly, Mark Levin claim? That certainly isn’t what left-wingers thought. Here is how the web site Impeach Bush covered the vote:
Q: Is it a good thing that it (the Kucinich Resolution) was referred to the Judiciary Committee?
A: Yes. The mainstream media is saying the resolution was “scuttled”. But referral to Judiciary Committee is the normal process for moving forward with an impeachment resolution. Now HRes 1258 can be fine tuned while we build support in Congress and with the public. But there is a danger. If we cannot convince John Conyers to schedule time for HRes 1258 then it could die.
Which, of course, is what happened. So Congressman Castle voted, as the media reported at the time, to “scuttle” Kucinich’s impeachment resolution.
Stop.
Hello?
The post clearly and correctly says “referral to the Judiciary Committee is the normal process for moving forward with an impeachment resolution.”
It goes on to say that now that the Resolution is referred to Judiciary it can be “fine tuned while we build support for moving forward with an impeachment resolution” — unless Chairman John Conyers chooses not to schedule it.
Triumphantly, Powerline then says, “which, of course, is what happened.”
But what if it hadn’t happened?
By voting to send this Resolution to Judiciary all those who voted “Aye” were taking the chance that Conyers, who has been introducing impeachment resolutions on Republicans since Nixon (and in that case long before Watergate) would not act. This, presumably, is exactly why 166 Republicans voted against sending the Resolution to Judiciary. They didn’t want to give Conyers the chance to “fine tune” it.
The tell-tale fact here is that 166 — that’s 166 Republican House members — voted no.
Riehl and Levin have this right. Powerline has it wrong.
Castle was doing what he could, when he could, to help this impeachment move trundle along. Or, plain and simple, he would have voted no with the 166 Republicans.
My friend Quin Hillyer says I should have checked the other names of the 24. I did so at the time. I saw David Dreier’s name, and of course said in my post that this vote could have been executed this way for parliamentary reasons. I wish people would actually read what was written! I allowed for the possibility. Having worked in the House, as has Quin, I checked the other names.
But Quin makes exactly my point, so let me quote his latest post:
With Dreier on board, it is CLEAR, circumstantially but with overwhelmingly obvious logic, that those who voted to send it to committee were doing so in the knowledge that this move would likely scuttle the bill.
Say again:
Quin says “ circumstantially…likely.” Not real comforting words when dealing with a far left-winger like Conyers who has a taste for impeaching Republican presidents.
Which is to say, Dreier and company were, unless evidence surfaces to the contrary, guessing — gambling — that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who, again, has a taste for impeachment resolutions, would do nothing. They could have easily been wrong.
More to the point, when someone like Castle is on board it lends absolutely to the idea that he was hoping Conyers would actually do what Conyers likes to do — not that he wouldn’t do it. If you wanted a reliable Republican to venture out with you on something this risky — would you pick Mike Castle?
I don’t think so.
It just isn’t that complicated.
Sorry.
\
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/09/14/powerline-gets-it-wrong-levin
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.