Karl Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Anyway, did you notice that Palin seemed to give two separate speeches at the convention? The first was about her life and career, and I liked it and I liked her. The second was all attacks and smears, and it seemed obvious that they'd told her what to say. The next morning, I read that she arrived with her own speech, but some Bush speech writer had "fixed" to it. Then I saw her repeat the same attack crap in the next few appearances, until she flew back home, where she gave a nice speech about Alaska, what it meant to her, etc., and again I found myself liking her.

Moral of the story: the Bush/Rove dirty politics are exactly the crap we want CHANGE from, and rather than join the Dark Side, these two should just be themselves. I think they'd have a much better chance.

No offense, but I like puppies and pie, and I think you are exhibiting terribly superficial things to judge a candidate on. Of course she has her inspirational stuff.

I don't get the puppies and pie comment, but in any case, whether I like the woman or not, I didn't know who she was until two weeks ago, and therefore I DO NOT want her being one senior moment away from the presidency. Add to that the fact that McCain himself only met her once or twice before selecting her, and IMO it is a reckless and irresponsible decision to put her on the ticket.

My point was that if these two people really are and have been "mavericks", then now is the wrong time to become true Republicans, because thats exactly what we've had enough of.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: AllWhacked
And playing the victim doesn't appeal to conservatives.

1
What? This is ALL this unholy alliance of the "Fuck Yeah, America!" neocons and the primitive religious fundamentalists have ever done!

"I'm white, I only make $300,000 dollars a year, and I'm not gonna' take it anymore." combined with, "I'm white, Jeebus loves me better than you, and if you won't legislate the sacred right to life of a zygote, even begotten by rape, I shall pack the Supreme Court and hunt you down and put you in jail, Obama . . . sorry, (hee hee), Osama!"

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
Anyway, did you notice that Palin seemed to give two separate speeches at the convention? The first was about her life and career, and I liked it and I liked her. The second was all attacks and smears, and it seemed obvious that they'd told her what to say. The next morning, I read that she arrived with her own speech, but some Bush speech writer had "fixed" to it. Then I saw her repeat the same attack crap in the next few appearances, until she flew back home, where she gave a nice speech about Alaska, what it meant to her, etc., and again I found myself liking her.

Moral of the story: the Bush/Rove dirty politics are exactly the crap we want CHANGE from, and rather than join the Dark Side, these two should just be themselves. I think they'd have a much better chance.

No offense, but I like puppies and pie, and I think you are exhibiting terribly superficial things to judge a candidate on. Of course she has her inspirational stuff.

You like pie? STFU SEXIST!@

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: AllWhacked
And playing the victim doesn't appeal to conservatives.

1
What? This is ALL this unholy alliance of the "Fuck Yeah, America!" neocons and the primitive religious fundamentalists have ever done!

"I'm white, I only make $300,000 dollars a year, and I'm not gonna' take it anymore." combined with, "I'm white, Jeebus loves me better than you, and if you won't legislate the sacred right to life of a zygote, even begotten by rape, I shall pack the Supreme Court and hunt you down and put you in jail, Obama . . . sorry, (hee hee), Osama!"

Playing the victim is what they do best - it's Action Plan A to energize the base

Play up emotion, faith, patriotism and fear. Us v. Them. False Dichotomy - then Lie.

Persist in going negative even when criticisms are factual. Scream about negativism while wallowing in the mud, shiving a democrat, praising Jebus and wrapping yourself up in the flag.

When confronted with a factual criticism:

1) deny the factual criticism;
2) attack your opponent - claim your opponent is dishonest, negative, non-responsive and divisive;
3) omit, or intentionally suppress, information that has a direct bearing on the validity of your argument; and
4) play 'The Truth Card' and demand your subjectivity be given greater weight that those of others (the "Monopoly of Truth' play).


Right out of the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove Turd Blossom Contard Playbook ... :disgust:

 

[jonks]

Just got home and watched McCain's appearance on Morning Joe. What a douchebag lying sack of shit. Straight talk must now mean he only talks to straight people, because he sure as shit isn't able to speak one true word.

Scarborough: besides 'workers', what exactly are the fundamentals you were referring to when you said the 'fundamentals of the economy are strong'?
Senile/Lying sack of shit: "oh ,you know, the workers, their productivity, their innovation, their performance. This is wall street's fault, they betrayed the workers."

later...

Scarborough: your ad says Obama was in favor of a bill that would teach comprehensive sex eduction to kindergartners, teach them "sex before reading". Is that a fair ad?
wrinkly sack of shit: that's exactly the language of the bill and I'm grateful the bill was rejected.


There you have it. McCain's own words, he's glad kindergartners will not be taught how to protect themselves from predators and inappropriate touching.

"I'm John McCain, and I want your kids to get molested."

Fuckwad.






Sorry, it's been a long day. but i do feel better now.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: senseamp

You have to sink pretty low for Karl "McCain's black baby" Rove to say you went too far.

Karl Rove said both candidates are guilty of going too far in their attacks.

The CNN article, campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, and your post are "beyond the '100 percent truth' test."

"In case anyone was still wondering whether Barack Obama is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove -- the man who held the previous record -- said Obama's ads have gone too far."

How does that negate what he said about McCain?
Your statement is beyond 0% logic test, on the wrong side.

Well, the fact that you were selective about who you were throwing under the bus because you are a partisan hack probably has something to do with it.

For all this bullshit talk about change... nobody seems to notice that Obama is as much a political hack as any of them... he just hasnt been doing it as long. I'm no fan of McCain... but Obama scares the shit outta me.

 

[Lemon law]

Actually Karl Rove has a good point, the object of the game is not to ever be caught as the original originators of the sleezy attacks, that is what secondary running dogs are for. Never let it be traced back to you.

Karl Rove heap sleezy but also heap smart, McCain is just heap dumb.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: RY62

Originally posted by: senseamp

You have to sink pretty low for Karl "McCain's black baby" Rove to say you went too far.

Karl Rove said both candidates are guilty of going too far in their attacks.

The CNN article, campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, and your post are "beyond the '100 percent truth' test."

"In case anyone was still wondering whether Barack Obama is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove -- the man who held the previous record -- said Obama's ads have gone too far."

oh come on now, you know there's not nearly as much sizzle in the story if they include all affected parties in the title. Hell, if he did that half the koolaid crew might not have even opened the thread.


But it does serve as a good hack check given the number of tools spouting the title off as fact as if the entire story didn't exist