Donklephant » Rove

Rove Behind Politically Motivated US Attorney Firings

Justin Gardner — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 03:53:18 +0000

Many of us are already regard the Bush administration as a bad, distant memory, but today we’re reminded of just how morally bankrupt they were.

From Wash Post:

The dismissal of U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico in December 2006 followed extensive communication among lawyers and political aides in the White House who hashed over complaints about his work on public corruption cases against Democrats, according to newly released e-mails and transcripts of closed-door House testimony by former Bush counsel Harriet Miers and political chief Karl Rove.

A campaign to oust Iglesias intensified after state GOP officials and Republican members of the congressional delegation apparently concluded that he was not pursuing the cases against Democrats in a way that could help then-Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R) in a tight reelection race in New Mexico, according to interviews and Bush White House e-mails released Tuesday by congressional investigators. The documents place the genesis of Iglesias’s dismissal earlier than previously known. [...]

The House panel focused most of its attention on Iglesias, a rising star in New Mexico who came to displease his political patrons. Miers told investigators that Rove called her in September 2006, “agitated” about the slow pace of public corruption cases against Democrats and weak efforts to pursue voter-fraud cases in the state. In the call, Miers said, Rove described Iglesias as a “serious problem” and said he wanted “something done” about it. Miers testified that she called then-Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty to pass along the concerns.

Yes, Rove didn’t say “I want Iglesias fired!”, but this is much more than nudge nudge wink wink. Miers admits that Rove said he wanted something done. That was September 2006. Two months later in November, Iglesias’ name was placed on a list for dismissal. In December he was fired.

Rove’s response? As if you even have to read it….

In a statement Tuesday, Rove asserted that he “never sought to influence the conduct of any prosecution” and did not decide which prosecutors were fired. He also accused Democrats of making “false accusations and partisan innuendoes.”

The only problem here with Rove’s hacky answers is the fact that Harriet Miers is now the one supplying the accusations and innuendoes. To me this is game, set, match.

Moving on…

Obama embraces the Bush/Cheney unitary executive

mw — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:57:46 +0000

For me, it was the most compelling argument to vote for Barack Obama – We need to elect a Democrat to “undo the damage” of the Bush administration.

Although I agreed with the diagnosis, I could not concur with the treatment. The toxic side effects of Single Party Rule presented a greater risk than the potential benefit of curing the Bush/Cheney unitary executive disease. In particular, the prospect of the new President inheriting the expanded Bush/Cheney presidential power while his party held even larger majorities than enjoyed by George W Bush and the Republicans was particularly frightening. Those fears were confirmed last week, when Obama steamrolled a very bad stimulus bill over a neutered Republican party, handing future generations more debt and putting the economic future of the country at risk.

That said, I expected to enjoy a couple of civil liberty consolation prizes with the Obama victory. First and foremost, balance would be maintained in judicial appointments and on the Supreme Court, and second – Obama would indeed roll back some of the worst offenses of the Bush administration. While I still have high hopes for the first consolation prize, early indications are not promising for the second. Not promising at all.

I know it has only been a month, but Obama works fast. It is not too early to checkpoint how President Obama is progressing on “undoing the damage” of the Bush/Cheney Imperial Presidency. The most egregious offenses of the Bush/Cheney administration fall under the umbrella of expanding executive branch power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches, with a commensurate erosion of constitutional protections. There are some positives. The executive order to close Guantanamo in a year or so is great news. The executive order on torture sounded great, as long as you ignore the loopholes. But on balance – So far… all is not so good.

The Obama administration supports Bush era invocation of state secrecy to protect rendition and torture.

Anthony Romero – ACLU:
“After the British High Court ruled that evidence of British resident Binyam Mohamed’s extraordinary rendition and torture at GuantÃ¡namo Bay must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama administration told the BBC today in a written statement: “The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens.” The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union: “Hope is flickering. The Obama administration’s position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law.“

The Obama administration supports Bush era state secrecy claims to deny torture victims their day in court.

Glen Greenwald – Salon:
“What makes this particularly appalling and inexcusable is that Senate Democrats had long vehemently opposed the use of the “state secrets” privilege in exactly the way that the Bush administration used it in this case, even sponsoring legislation to limits its use and scope. Yet here is Obama, the very first chance he gets, invoking exactly this doctrine in its most expansive and abusive form to prevent torture victims even from having their day in court, on the ground that national security will be jeopardized if courts examine the Bush administration’s rendition and torture programs — even though (a) the rendition and torture programs have been written about extensively in the public record; (b) numerous other countries have investigated exactly these allegations; and (c) other countries have provided judicial forums in which these same victims could obtain relief… What this is clearly about is shielding the U.S. Government and Bush officials from any accountability. Worse, by keeping Bush’s secrecy architecture in place, it ensures that any future President — Obama or any other — can continue to operate behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy, with no transparency or accountability even for blatantly criminal acts.“

The Obama administration supports Bush era state secrecy claims to protect executive orders for illegal wiretapping and domestic surveillance.

Bob Egelko – San Francisco Chronicle:
“For the second time this week, the Obama administration has gone to court in San Francisco to argue for secrecy in defending a terrorism policy crafted under George W. Bush - in this case, wiretapping that President Obama denounced as a candidate… The dispute involves Walker’s Jan. 5 order to allow plaintiffs who say the government illegally wiretapped their phones to read a classified surveillance document that could confirm the assertion and avoid dismissal of their suit. Lawyers for the Obama administration say the judge’s decision “presents a clear-cut conflict between the court and the executive branch.”

Out of fairness, I should point out that this last should not be a surprise. It is completely consistent with the July, 2008 version of Barack Obama who voted against the rule of law and in support of immunity for the Telecom companies that cooperated with illegal government wiretap requests. OTOH it is a complete flip-flop from the January 2008 version of Barack Obama who promised to support a filibuster to prevent granting immunity to Telecom companies.

The Obama administration opposes torture, but not all the time.

Greg Sargent – the Plum Line:
“As I noted here yesterday, human rights advocates think that the executive order outlawing torture that President Obama signed yesterday preserves some wiggle room… Obama very strongly denounced torture yesterday as he signed the order outlawing it. But itâ€™s nonetheless hard to avoid the conclusion that the administration does in fact want to preserve some kind of flexibility here, for reasons that are not yet entirely clear, at least to me.”

The Obama administration continues Bush era faith based initiatives undermining the principle of Separation of Church and State.

New York Times Editorial:
“…there was reassuring language about maintaining the separation of church and state in Mr. Obamaâ€™s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast preceding the issuance of his order, and in the order itself. But it would have been a lot more reassuring if the directive had actually revoked Mr. Bushâ€™s 2002 executive order authorizing religious-oriented recipients of federal funding to hire and fire on religious grounds.We suspect that Mr. Obama was not particularly proud of this omission. He chose to sign his order away from the view of television cameras or an audience. Joshua DuBois, the Pentecostal minister selected by Mr. Obama to lead his initiative, says the president is â€œcommitted to nondiscrimination,â€ and that the executive order â€œprovides a processâ€ for case-by-case review to decide if grants to faith-based organizations are â€œconsistent with law.â€ What process? The executive order says only that White House officials â€œmayâ€ seek Justice Department guidance if questions arise about particular grants. Discrimination by faith-based grantees should be barred.The case-by-case review seems destined to confuse as much as enlighten. And it is hardly the clear commitment to proper employment practices Mr. Obama voiced as a candidate, and the Constitution requires.“

White House Political Office, Politicizing the White House Counsel, Executive Privilege – The more things change…

Other early items where the Obama administration appears to moving closer to the style and substance of the previous administration include: Obama continues the much reviled White House Political Office – former home of Karl Rove; Obama appointed a political hack to the office of the White House Counsel, further opening the administration to comparisons with the Bush/Rove White House and charges of politicizing the office; – and – as long as we are on the topic of Karl Rove; The Obama administration will apparently not challenge the constitutionally questionable Bush administration claims of “executive privilege” shielding Karl Rove from testimony before the legislature in the matter of U.S. Attorney General firings

There are more than a few liberals who have not hesitated to to call BS, most notably Glen Greenwald, as he takes to task those whose loyalty is not to principle but to a personality:

“During the 2008 election, Obama co-opted huge portions of the Left and its infrastructure so that their allegiance became devoted to him and not to any ideas. Many online political and “news” outlets — including some liberal political blogs — discovered that the most reliable way to massively increase traffic was to capitalize on the pro-Obama fervor by turning themselves into pro-Obama cheerleading squads…. on one issue after the next, one can vividly observe the harm that comes from a political faction being beholden to a leader rather than to any actual ideas or political principles.”

Greenwald’s analysis is instructive. It explains why so many on the left greet Obama’s support and active defense of the Bush/Cheney model of the unitary executive with a yawn. It is not the principle of checks, balances and constitutional protections that inform their view of the world. For some on the left, it is about blind loyalty to a leader and a party. From their perspective, the Bush/Cheney model of executive power is not a problem if Obama is in the White House. Apparently, with the ring of power in Barack Obama’s benevolent hands, the Bush/Cheney executive power will only be used for good. So – just put your trust in Barack – not in the rule of law – not in the Constitution – but in the man. These Obama supporters resemble nothing so much as the right-wing apologists for Bush administration excesses.

Greenwald says it best:

“What we need far more than a benevolent and magnanimous President is a re-assertion of Congressional authority as a check on executive power. Even if Obama decided unilaterally to refrain from exercising some of the powers which the Bush administration seized, that would be a woefully insufficient check against future abuse, since it would mean that these liberties would be preserved only when a benevolent ruler occupies the White House (and, then, only when the benevolent occupant decides not to use the power). Acts of Congress — along with meaningful, enforced oversight of the President — are indispensable for preventing these abuses. And that’s true whether or not one believes that the current occupant of the Oval Office is a good, kind and trustworthy ruler.”

Under the current incarnation of One Party Rule, the Republicans are impotent in the face of Obama and his large Democratic majority. The only hope for any moderation of the power of this presidency, must come from principled Democratic legislators in Congress (Feingold, Feinstein, and Leahy are stepping up). The only hope for economic sanity, must come from Democratic fiscal conservatives like the few Democratic representatives in the House of Representatives that voted against stimulus porker.

It’s only been a month.

Obama still has plenty of time to correct course.

That is my (faint) Hopeâ„¢.

^{Excerpted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“}

Karl Rove On Twitter

Justin Gardner — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:00:28 +0000

The Architect (of the GOP’s demise?) is on the microblogging/messaging platform and I’m almost 100% sure it’s actually him. The only reason I say that is because some folks have created fake accounts, including somebody claiming to be Karl Rove.

In any event, whatever you may think of Rove, I think most people will acknowledge that the guy is incredibly smart. I mean, Bush as a two termer? Enough said.

And that’s why he understands that the GOP may be able to find their way back to the White House by engaging the voters of tomorrow via social channels like Twitter, Facebook, etc., and finding out what the national mood is.

After all, Rove and the GOP can’t ignore the fact that Obama got over 360 electoral votes and was heavily involved in the socialsphere. Obviously his messages of hope and change were the most important factors, but I don’t think they would have been nearly as effective if he didn’t engage voters through channels that amplified his commitment to being open, honest and transparent.

By the way, you can follow my Twitter updates here.

Quote Of The Day

Justin Gardner — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:59:00 +0000

“History will favor Republicans in 2010. Since World War II, the out-party has gained an average of 23 seats in the U.S. House and two in the U.S. Senate in a new president’s first midterm election. Other than FDR and George W. Bush, no president has gained seats in his first midterm election in both chambers.”
- Karl Rove in a new column in the Wall Street Journal

And you know what? He has a point. And if Rove knows anything, he knows the national mood. Because let’s remember, he predicted an Obama win.

Here’s more…

In a sign Mr. Obama’s victory may have been more personal than partisan or philosophical, Democrats picked up just 10 state senate seats (out of 1,971) and 94 state house seats (out of 5,411). By comparison, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, Republicans picked up 112 state senate seats (out of 1,981) and 190 state house seats (out of 5,501).

In the states this year, five chambers shifted from Republican to Democrats, while four shifted from either tied or Democratic control to Republican control. In the South, Mr. Obama had “reverse coattails.” Republicans gained legislative seats across the region. In Tennessee both the house and senate now have GOP majorities for the first time since the Civil War.

This matters because the 2010 Census could allocate as many as four additional congressional districts to Texas, two each to Arizona and Florida, and one district to each of a number of (mostly) red-leaning states, while subtracting seats from (mostly) blue-leaning states like Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania and, for the first time, California. Redistricting and reapportionment could help tilt the playing field back to the GOP in Congress and the race for the White House by moving seven House seats (and electoral votes) from mostly blue to mostly red states.

Even more reason for Dems to not overreach?

Absolutely.

Obama Goes Rovian

Alan Stewart Carl — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:06:54 +0000

No, Iâ€™m not talking about wedge issues, Iâ€™m talking about laying down the kind of organization that brings out the base.

Dante Chinni of the Patchwork Nation blog at the Christian Science Monitor explains the effort. Itâ€™s interesting and sounds like smart politics to me.

By the way, if youâ€™ve never checked out Patchwork Nation, itâ€™s worth a look.

Rove: “You Can’t Trust The Fact Check Organizations”

Justin Gardner — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:00:48 +0000

Heh. Of course you can’t.

Karl Rove…always good for a laugh.

Quote Of The Day

Justin Gardner — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:53:05 +0000

“Mr. McCain is the most private person to run for president since Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s. He needs to share (or allow others to share) more about him, especially his faith. The McCain and Obama campaigns are mirror opposites. Mr. McCain offers little biography, while Mr. Obama is nothing but.”
- Karl Rove in a WSJ editorial today.

Hmmm…

Quick survey…raise your hand if you knew WELL before this campaign that McCain was shot down in Vietnam and suffered for years in a POW camp? All of you? Okay, good.

Rove knows very well that McCain’s personal narrative has been public knowledge for quite some time now, but that won’t stop the architect from trying to build yet another false premise…that of McCain as the “Un-celebrity.”

By the way, I have absolutely NO problem with John McCain being the political celebrity he is. Honestly, I don’t think he’d be the candidate this time around if he hadn’t been this well known. It definitely gave him a leg up on that massive field of Republican candidates. But it’s laughable to suggest that McCain is “most private person to run for president since Calvin Coolidge.” I mean…come on…

One last thing…click through to read a list of all of the television and movies John McCain has appeared on as “Himself”, including the wrestling program “WWF Raw is War”, the sitcom “The Tony Danza Show” and the film “Wedding Crashers.”

Courtesy of IMDB…

“Today” …. Himself (2 episodes, 2007-2008)
… aka NBC News Today (USA: promotional title)
… aka The Today Show (USA)
– Episode dated 21 July 2008 (2008) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 28 December 2007 (2007) TV episode …. Himself

“Late Night with Conan O’Brien” …. Himself / … (3 episodes, 2004-2008)
… aka Late Night with Conan O’Brien (Australia)
– Episode dated 18 July 2008 (2008) TV episode (as Senator John McCain) …. Herself
– Episode dated 25 May 2005 (2005) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 27 May 2004 (2004) TV episode …. Himself

“Entertainment Tonight” …. Himself (2 episodes, 2008)
… aka E.T. (USA: informal title)
… aka ET Weekend (Australia: weekend title)
… aka Entertainment This Week (weekend title)
… aka This Week in Entertainment (USA: weekend title)
– Episode dated 4 June 2008 (2008) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 9 May 2008 (2008) TV episode …. Himself

“Saturday Night Live” …. Himself / … (2 episodes, 2002-2008)
… aka NBC’s Saturday Night (USA: first season title)
… aka SNL (USA: informal title)
… aka SNL 25 (USA: alternative title)
… aka Saturday Night (USA: second season title)
… aka Saturday Night Live ‘80 (USA: sixth season title)
… aka The Best of Saturday Night Live (USA: rerun title)
– Steve Carell/Usher (2008) TV episode (as Senator John McCain) …. Himself
– Senator John McCain/The White Stripes (2002) TV episode …. Himself – Host

“Live with Regis and Kathie Lee” …. Himself (1 episode, 2008)
… aka Live with Regis (USA: new title)
… aka Live with Regis & Kelly (USA: new title)
– Episode dated 14 May 2008 (2008) TV episode (as Senator John McCain) …. Himself

“The O’Reilly Factor” …. Himself (4 episodes, 2005-2008)
– Episode dated 9 May 2008 (2008) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 8 May 2008 (2008) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 27 December 2007 (2007) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 26 July 2005 (2005) TV episode …. Himself

“The Daily Show” …. Himself (12 episodes, 2001-2008)
… aka A Daily Show with Jon Stewart (USA: new title)
… aka Jon Stewart (Australia)
… aka The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (USA: new title)
… aka The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Global Edition (International: English title: cut version)
– Episode dated 7 May 2008 (2008) TV episode (as Senator John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 16 August 2007 (2007) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 24 April 2007 (2007) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 24 July 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 4 April 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
(7 more)

“WWF Raw Is War” …. Himself (1 episode, 2008)
… aka Raw Is War (USA: short title)
… aka WWE Monday Night RAW (USA: new title)
… aka WWE Raw (USA: new title)
… aka WWF Raw (USA: new title)
– Episode dated 21 April 2008 (2008) TV episode …. Himself

“The View” …. Himself (2 episodes, 2005-2008)
– Episode dated 10 April 2008 (2008) TV episode (as Senator John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 8 November 2005 (2005) TV episode (as Sen. John McClain) …. Himself

“Late Show with David Letterman” …. Himself / … (8 episodes, 2001-2008)
… aka Late Show Backstage (USA: title for episodes with guest hosts)
… aka Letterman (Australia)
… aka The Late Show (USA: informal short title)
– Episode #15.90 (2008) TV episode (as Senator John McCain) …. Himself – Guest
– Episode #15.41 (2008) TV episode …. Himself – Pre-taped segment/’Late Show Candidate Spotlight’
– Episode #15.40 (2008) TV episode …. Himself – Pre-taped segment/’Late Show Candidate Spotlight’
– Episode dated 28 February 2007 (2007) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 9 February 2006 (2006) TV episode …. Himself
(3 more)

“IFC News: 2008 Uncut” …. Himself (2 episodes, 2007-2008)
– Episode #1.10 (2008) TV episode …. Himself
– Introducing the Circus (2007) TV episode …. Himself

“Larry King Live” …. Himself (9 episodes, 2004-2008)
– Jon McCain (2008) TV episode …. Himself
– With President Bush address Tonight (2007) TV episode …. Himself
– Sen. John McCain (2007) TV episode …. Himself
– Sen John McCain (2007) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 10 January 2007 (2007) TV episode …. Himself
(4 more)

“The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” …. Himself / … (10 episodes, 2001-2008)
– Episode dated 31 January 2008 (2008) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 29 August 2007 (2007) TV episode (as Senator John McCain) …. Herself
– Episode dated 28 August 2007 (2007) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 7 August 2006 (2006) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 18 April 2006 (2006) TV episode …. Himself
(5 more)

CNN/YouTube Republican Debate (2007) (TV) …. Himself
“On the Record w/ Greta Van Susteren” …. Himself (1 episode, 2007)
– Episode dated 20 September 2007 (2007) TV episode …. Himself

Darfur Now (2007) …. Himself

“The Situation Room” …. Himself (1 episode, 2007)
– Episode dated 5 July 2007 (2007) TV episode …. Himself

The World Awaits: De La Hoya vs. Mayweather (2007) (TV) (uncredited) …. Himself – Audience Member

“American Morning” …. Himself (1 episode, 2007)
– Episode dated 1 May 2007 (2007) TV episode …. Himself

“The Michael Smerconish Show on MSNBC” …. Himself (1 episode, 2007)
– Episode dated 24 April 2007 (2007) TV episode …. Himself

“Face the Nation” …. Himself (4 episodes, 2006)
– Episode dated 24 September 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 9 July 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 7 May 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 15 January 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself

“This Week” …. Himself (5 episodes, 2005-2006)
– Episode dated 17 September 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 13 August 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 2 July 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 26 February 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 18 December 2005 (2005) TV episode (as Sen John McCain) …. Himself

“Meet the Press” …. Himself (6 episodes, 2003-2006)
… aka Meet the Press with Tim Russert (USA: complete title)
– Episode dated 20 August 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 2 April 2006 (2006) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 4 December 2005 (2005) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 19 June 2005 (2005) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 6 June 2004 (2004) TV episode …. Himself
(1 more)

“Hardball with Chris Matthews” …. Himself (2 episodes, 2005-2006)
– Episode dated 14 July 2006 (2006) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 1 March 2005 (2005) TV episode …. Himself

“CNN Live Today” …. Himself (1 episode, 2006)
– Episode dated 8 June 2006 (2006) TV episode …. Himself

Port Town (2006) …. Himself

2006 White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner (2006) (TV) …. Himself

Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater (2006) …. Himself

“Tavis Smiley” …. Himself (1 episode, 2006)
– Episode dated 6 January 2006 (2006) TV episode …. Himself

“The Tony Danza Show” …. Himself (1 episode, 2005)
– Episode #2.55 (2005) TV episode …. Himself

“Quite Frankly with Stephen A. Smith” …. Himself (1 episode, 2005)
– Episode dated 10 November 2005 (2005) TV episode …. Himself

“The Charlie Rose Show” …. Himself (1 episode, 2005)
… aka Charlie Rose (USA: new title)
– Episode dated 31 October 2005 (2005) TV episode …. Himself

“ESPN 25: Who’s #1?” …. Himself (1 episode, 2005)
– The Best World Series (2005) TV episode …. Himself

“Beyond the Glory” …. Himself (1 episode, 2005)
– Ultimate Fighting Championship (2005) TV episode …. Himself

Wedding Crashers (2005) (uncredited) …. Himself

“NBC Nightly News” …. Himself (3 episodes, 2005)
– Episode dated 27 May 2005 (2005) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 26 May 2005 (2005) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself
– Episode dated 18 May 2005 (2005) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself

“ESPN SportsCentury” …. Himself (1 episode, 2005)
– Pat Tillman (2005) TV episode …. Himself

Missing, Presumed Dead: The Search for America’s POWs (2005)

Why We Fight (2005) …. Himself
… aka Nerf de la guerre, Le (France: TV title)

“60 Minutes” …. Himself (1 episode, 2004)
… aka TV Land Legends: The 60 Minutes Interviews (USA: rerun title)
– Episode dated 31 October 2004 (2004) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself

“Paula Zahn Now” …. Himself (3 episodes, 2004)
– Episode dated 28 September 2004 (2004) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 7 June 2004 (2004) TV episode …. Himself
– Episode dated 23 April 2004 (2004) TV episode …. Himself

“ABC Evening News” …. Himself (1 episode, 2004)
… aka ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings (USA: long new title)
… aka ABC World News with Charles Gibson (USA: new title)
… aka ABC WorldNews Tonight (USA: new title)
… aka Peter Jennings with the News (USA: new title)
– Episode dated 8 April 2004 (2004) TV episode (as Sen John McCain) …. Himself

“ABC News Nightline” …. Himself (1 episode, 2004)
… aka Nightline
– Episode dated 5 April 2004 (2004) TV episode (as Sen. John McCain) …. Himself

“Arizona Highways” (2004) TV series …. Himself (unknown episodes)

“Listen Up! Charles Barkley with Ernie Johnson” …. Himself (1 episode, 2002)
… aka Listen Up! (USA: short title)
– Episode #1.1 (2002) TV episode …. Himself

Lewis Black: Taxed Beyond Belief (2002) (TV) …. Himself

Return with Honor (1998)

Rove: Obama Is Arrogant

Justin Gardner — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:26:57 +0000

And this guy would know since he was key in creating one of the most arrogant and secretive administrations since Nixon.

From ABC:

ABC News’ Christianne Klein reports that at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club this morning, former White House senior aide Karl Rove referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as “coolly arrogant.”

“Even if you never met him, you know this guy,” Rove said, per Christianne Klein. “He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

Jake Tapper weighs in with the the obvious counterpoint…

Who, pray tell, is Rove at this country club? The guy telling funny stories near the band? The charming president of the club’s philanthropic arm? The brainy guy with all the sports scores?

Or the guy who vandalizes your car and blames it on the kitchen staff?

Long story short, Obama certainly isn’t the most folksy character to step on the national stage, but Rove has absolutely no room throwing the “arrogant” label around.

Pot, meet kettle…

McClellan Testifies About Plame Leak

Justin Gardner — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:57:05 +0000

He went before Congress today and told us a lot of what we already know. But, again, it looks like this was definitely one of those cases where people wanted to wish that nothing happened instead of accepting the reality that Libby (and Rove and Cheney) were intimately involved with this leaking.

Excerpted liberally from the AP:

Scott McClellan, Bush’s spokesman from 2003-2006, said he had reservations about publicly clearing the name of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff at the time. Later, Libby was convicted of obstructing the FBI investigation of the leak. [...]

He said former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card told him that the president and vice president wanted him to publicly say that Libby was not involved in the leak.

“I was reluctant to do it,” McClellan told the Democratic-led panel. “I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, ‘Were you involved in this in any way?’ And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not.”

What will come of this? Ultimately, not much. Because I can’t imagine anybody else getting indicted as a result of this testimony. Libby was the fall guy, he was convicted and that’s that.

Still, this is the story that just won’t go away, and it’ll continue to hurt Bush (and Rove and Cheney) for years to come.

Karl Rove Picks Biden and Romney For VEEP…

Jennn Fusion — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:23:47 +0000

Seriously, Karl… That’s so cliche of you to pick two former presidential running mates. As punishment, I’m going to remind everyone about the time you got down with your bad self (”MC Rove“) at the White House Correspondents Dinner.

Anyway, this Sunday, Karl Rove came on “Fox News Sunday” and told Chris Wallace what he thinks about the veepstakes so far…

For McCain: “Well, first of all, we are way before they get down to a short list. You know, most of the nominees are named either at the convention or the week before the convention, so we’ve got two months to go on this.

“What I tried to do here is choose types of people. You’ve got the â€” in Mitt Romney, you’ve got the defeated primary opponent.

“In Pawlenty, you’ve got the â€” you know, you’ve got a blue state Republican.

“In Charlie Crist, you’ve got a strong advocate and ally from the primary process.

“And then in Joe Lieberman, you’ve got the choice way out of left field â€” you know, the real excitement.

“Each one of these has their strengths and weaknesses, but each one of them ought to be thought of as an archetype rather than just an individual, because we are months away from them getting down to a short list.

“I’d pick Romney. Romney is already vetted by the media, strong executive experience both in business and in government, has an interesting story to tell with the saving the U.S. Olympics, and also helps McCain deal with the economy, because he can speak with the economy with a fluency that McCain doesn’t have.

“On the downside, he’s been a little uneven in his performance. In fact, that’s being charitable. I mean, this is the guy who talked about environments and marching with Martin Luther King and so forth. And there’s also the Mormon problem, which was really sort of astonishing to me.

“When his father ran for president in 1967, there was not a single story on the front page of the Washington Post, New York Times, or a cover article in any of the major news magazines about George Romney’s Mormonism.

“And yet we’ve been subjected to a lot of that kind of coverage this time around, and as a result, there is â€” and particularly in sort of evangelical and Baptist communities â€” a problem with his Mormonism.”

For Obama: “Biden is the â€” fills the role of the person who ran against him. He’s got foreign policy experience, which is turning out to be a weakness for Senator Obama, and has gravitas in Washington.

“Governor Sebelius is the governor of a red state, Kansas, likely to be a Republican state in a fall but nonetheless an interesting choice.

“Webb has been talked about. He’s been the recent sort of “buzz du jour” in Washington. And he’s got military credentials, crossover credentials, having served in the Reagan administration, and strong antiwar credentials, which helps Obama on his left.

“And then, of course, Chuck Hagel, which is the sort of out-of- left-field choice. Senator Hagel’s wife Lilibet has been an Obama contributor, and obviously Hagel has been a critic of the Iraq war. Despite his longstanding personal friendship with McCain, he has yet to endorse McCain.

“Out of those four, I’d say Biden. But look. I think the Democrat field of vice presidential candidates is far more opaque than the Republican side, because I think it is â€” this really comes down to â€” when you make a decision about vice president, you’ve got to make one of two decisions â€” who’s going to help me politically or who’s going to help me govern.

“And this really gets to be a personal decision of the candidate. And the mix between the two â€” how much of my decision is based on how much they can do for me politically, and how much has to do with the chemistry and their background and their abilities that I think will help complement me in governing â€” these are intensely personal.

“And as a result, you know, those of us now sitting on the outside watching it are not going to know how the candidates are going to go about doing this, particularly with Obama, who doesn’t have a track record of these kind of relationships and having played in high stakes politics.”

McClellan On Meet The Press

Justin Gardner — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 03:44:15 +0000

On the President’s tendency to lie to himself…

On misleading the American people…

On being part of the propaganda campaign to sell the war…

On knowing that the book would have an impact…

Frankly, this doesn’t sound like a guy who’s afraid of speaking his mind. I wonder if he will indeed testify, especially about the Rove/Libby/Plame stuff.

More as it develops…

Scott McClellan On The Today Show

Justin Gardner — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:04:16 +0000

The full 15 minute interview. I’m watching it now, and I’ll post thoughts when I’m done.

Part 1:

Part 2 (after Dan Bartlett):

I don’t know about you, but this seems like the same Scott McClellan I saw for years behind that podium.

So apparently, two things set him off. First, when he found out that that Rove and Libby lied to him about being involved in the Plame affair and made him look like a fool. Second, when he found out the President secretly declassified that NIE on Iraq so Cheney and Libby could anonymously leak it.

But more importantly than all that, McClellan’s core message in this book seems to be that this hyper-partisanship is Washington must stop because it results in people making really poor decisions and trying to destroy the credibility of the other side if they disagree.

One thing’s for sure, if this guy gets called to testify, he won’t have any problems defending what he wrote.

“Not The Scott We Knew”

Justin Gardner — Thu, 29 May 2008 05:02:02 +0000

That’s been the consistent message out of the White House loyalists, and none were more revealing than Ari Fleischer’s appearance on CNN this evening with a panel of reporters.

He basically suggested that McClellan had not really written many of the strongly worded accusations, and even talked of a phone conversation he had with him earlier that day where McClellan said his editor had definitely made some tweaks.

The reporters on the panel promptly laughed in Ari’s face.

In fact, here’s Ari on MSNBC making similar claims of being “heartbroken”…

So then, it feels like the White House and the loyalists are trying to do something here that’s particularly clever. Because when you hear Ari and Rove saying that this isn’t “the Scott we know” as if they’re hurt friends, what they’re really suggesting is that McClellan was not smart enough to write the book.

And yes, maybe it’s true that this was really shocking for everybody involved, but how many of these “after the fact” books do we have to endure before people will start to accept that something is not right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Not the Scott we knew? How about not the government we deserve.

Will McClellan Be Called To Testify?

Justin Gardner — Thu, 29 May 2008 04:44:21 +0000

That’s what one Dem congressman wants…

Today Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) called for former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to testify under oath regarding the devastating revelations made in his new book on the Bush Administrationâ€™s deliberate efforts to mislead the American people into the Iraq War.

â€œThe admissions made by Scott McClellan in his new book are earth-shattering and allege facts to establish that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby â€“ and possibly Vice President Cheney – conspired to obstruct justice by lying about their role in the Plame Wilson matter and that the Bush Administration deliberately lied to the American people in order to take us to war in Iraq. Scott McClellan must now appear before the House Judiciary Committee under oath to tell Congress and the American people how President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and White House officials deliberately orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people.â€

McClellan certainly rang a lot of bells, didn’t he? I guess we may see how well his stories hold up after all.

Rove Responds To McClellan’s Accusations

Justin Gardner — Wed, 28 May 2008 13:26:13 +0000

Now it’s turning into a he said/he said scenario, and Rove is clever enough to know that he can muddy the waters enough simply by throwing a few big rocks into this pond…like when he says McClellan sounds like a left-wing blogger.

From Hannity and Colmes last night…

Folks, how out of the loop does Rove really think we’re going to believe McClellan was? After all, he’s said in the past that he knows he was lied to regarding the Plame affair, and no amount of carefully parsing by Rove of “Well, he asked this, not that,” will change that for him.

More as it develops…

House Committee Subpoenas Rove To Testify In Siegelman Case

Justin Gardner — Fri, 23 May 2008 02:16:22 +0000

We’ve detailed the seemingly politically motivated prosecution and conviction of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman’s in February and March of this year, and now it appears that the House Judiciary Committee wants to put Rove in the hot seat to answer questions about whether he had a hand in it.

Here’s the scoop…

Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the committee chairman, said the subpoena was necessary because Mr. Rove had explicitly declined an invitation to appear voluntarily. Mr. Conyers and fellow committee Democrats say they want to question Mr. Rove about the dismissals of several federal prosecutors and ask whether he knows anything about the decision to prosecute former Gov. Donald E. Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.

Mr. Siegelman, who was convicted on a bribery charge, was released from prison in March pending an appeal after an appeals court ruled that he had raised â€œsubstantial questionsâ€ about his case.

Mr. Roveâ€™s lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, in a letter to Mr. Conyers this week, said the chairman was â€œprovoking a gratuitous confrontation.â€ Mr. Luskin asserted that Mr. Rove would not appear because he had been directed not to do so by the White House. Although Mr. Rove has left the White House and is now a political commentator, Mr. Luskin said that Mr. Rove â€œin these matters is not a free agentâ€ and must comply with instructions from the White House not to testify.

So will he agree to testify? Well, his lawyer is signaling that the White House will try and make the “executive privilege” case, but the problem with that is Rove’s on the record as saying he never had any conversations with anybody in the White House about this case. So he shouldn’t be able to claim “executive privilege”, right?

And to the point about being on the record…

On April 7, MSNBC anchor Dan Abrams reported that Rove’s attorney, Robert Luskin, said Rove would agree to testify if Congress issues a subpoena to him as part of an investigation into the Siegelman case.

Ten days later, committee members invited Rove to appear, citing among other things Rove’s interview with GQ magazine. In that interview, Rove hurled insults at CBS News for airing a 60 Minutes segment on the Siegelman case, called his chief accuser a “lunatic” — but didn’t specifically deny any of the accusations.

This doesn’t look good for Karl.

More as it develops…

Guantanamo Prosecutor Reveals War Tribunals Politicized

Justin Gardner — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:30:00 +0000

As if this any surprise, but seriously…how many of these stories will we have to endure? And I have to think that even more will be coming out after Bush and company leave office.

From Reuters:

The former chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals testified on Monday that the tribunals were tainted by political influence and evidence obtained through prisoner abuse.

Air Force Col. Moe Davis, who quit the war court last year, said political appointees and higher-ranking officers pushed prosecutors to file charges before trial rules were even written.

A supposedly impartial legal adviser demanded they pursue cases where the defendant “had blood on his hands” because those would excite the public more than mundane cases against document forgers and al Qaeda facilitators, Davis said.

He said the pressure ramped up after “high-value” prisoners with alleged ties to the September 11 plot were moved to Guantanamo from secret CIA custody shortly before the 2006 U.S. congressional elections and amid the ongoing U.S. presidential campaigns.

“There was that consistent theme that if we didn’t get this thing rolling before the election it was going to implode,” Davis testified in the courtroom at the remote Guantanamo naval base in Cuba.

It seems like it’s all about politics with this administration and its surrogates. And folks, $#!+ doesn’t roll uphill so these highly partisan marching orders aren’t just appearing out of thin air.

Given this, is it any wonder why so many in this country have open, daily disdain for their War on Terrorism strategy? Because it seems designed to maximize only one thing: votes for Republicans.

I’m so done with these jokers.

Rove Advises Obama

Alan Stewart Carl — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:39:16 +0000

O.k., not in an official capacity. But The Architect has seen fit to offer Barack Obama advice as to how to turn around his campaign and start appealing to more than just the so-called white wine sippers and college students. He has six suggestions which Iâ€™ve abbreviated here:

1. Update and reinvigorate your stump speech.

2. When you get into trouble, pick one, simple explanation, rather than constantly revising the explanation like in the Rev. Wright situation.

3. Prove youâ€™ll build unity. Say that you’ll appoint Republicans. Highlight initiatives Republicans can agree on. Push for a bipartisan issue now before Congress.

4. Prove youâ€™re willing to take action and not just talk about it. Spend less time campaigning and more time working the Senate fighting for a big issue.

5. Stop the political attacks.

6. Tell people in concrete and credible ways what they can expect from you as president. Position papers written by academics and posted on the Web donâ€™t cut it. Avoid poll-tested positions and speak from the heart.

Without being cynical and assuming Rove is just trying to sabotage Obamaâ€™s campaign (which would indeed be Rovian), I think some of these ideas are pretty solid with the third suggestion being the best. Iâ€™ve said it many, many times before but Iâ€™ll say it again: itâ€™s great for Obama to talk about unity but until he demonstrates how he will actually create unity, I think itâ€™s unwise to assume heâ€™ll be anything greater than the sum of his boilerplate liberal positions.

Which gets us to suggestion six on Roveâ€™s list. What I think Rove is getting at is the same underlying problem discussed in the third suggestion. There is a disconnect between the â€œbringing us all togetherâ€ rhetoric and the tried-and-true Democratic policy positions Obama has adopted. This disconnect is why comments like the â€œbitterâ€ gaffe are so hotly discussed. Thereâ€™s a sense that the real Obama is still lurking somewhere in between or outside all that inspiring rhetoric and all those typically left-leaning policy positions.

I donâ€™t know if Rove is at all sincere in these suggestions. But I do know that Obama should sincerely consider the fact that heâ€™s developing holes in his image. If Rove is right about anything here, itâ€™s that itâ€™s time for Obama to make some repairs.

Key Clinton Labor Supporter Pushing Ayers Story

Justin Gardner — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:03:37 +0000

Some additional background, this guy claims he’s just creating a document that might help Dems get in front of what Karl Rove could be thinking, but come on folks…how stupid does he think we are?

From Huffington Post:

A high-ranking labor supporter of Hillary Clinton is distributing to union leaders and to Democratic strategists a document detailing the radical activities of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, two former members of the ’70s group the Weather Underground, who decades later, in Chicago, crossed paths with Barack Obama.

The document – a three-page emailed essay by Rick Sloan, communications director for the International Association of Machinists as Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) — takes both literary and political license to outline what Sloan believes would be the thrust of a hypothetical Republican campaign against Obama focusing on his tangential connection to Ayers and Dohrn.

The goal of the essay appears to be to discredit Obama as the prospective Democratic presidential nominee.

My question: Will they tell this guy to knock it off? So far the Clinton camp has only said that the essay isn’t their document…hardly a rebuke.

I guess we’ll see…

Rove On Hillary, Obama

Justin Gardner — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:57:26 +0000

Turd Blossom sat down with GQ and here’s what came out.

On Obamacans:

But take a look at the last four polls on which there are cross tabs available. There are twice as many Democrats defecting to McCain as there are Republicans defecting to Obama. In the Fox poll, Obama takes 74 percent of Democrats and loses 18 to McCain. And McCain keeps 80 percent of Republicans and loses 10 to Obama. And in every one of the polls, it’s nearly twice as many Democrats defect to McCain as Republicans defect to Obama. And against Clinton, it’s three times as many. Know why? Well, there are a lot of different reasons why.

There are Democrats, particularly blue-collar Democrats, who defect to McCain because they see McCain as a patriotic figure and they see Obama as an elitist who’s looking down his nose at ‘em. Which he is.

This sounds pretty standard, but if the “Obamacan” thing is a myth, that needs to be addressed by the campaign. Maybe that’s why we’re not hearing him talk too much about it anymore? It used to be part of his stump speech, but I haven’t see it lately. Interesting…

And, on his respect for Hillary (interviewer’s questions bolded):

I get the sense you respect Hillary more than you respect Obama.
Off the record?

Please don’t go off the record.
Off the recordâ€¦ [Yeah, it's good. Sorry.]

Damn! Now say that on the record.
No. Nope. Nope. Nope.

Let’s try again, then: on the record. I get the sense you respect her more than him.
Uh, I know her better than I know him. And I just, uhâ€”she has been around public life a lot longer and has demonstrated, you know, more involvement than he has.

This makes sense. Rove likes to fight and the Clinton’s are brawlers. There’s not doubt about that. But this is a preview of the “lightweight” meme that they’ll hit Obama with in the Fall. Too young, too inexperienced, too elitist.