Karl Rove on Fox News

[csteggo]

I was watching Fox News last night and Karl Rove was talking about CNN's poll and listing 63 to 60 for Obama and saying little difference. Yet you go at that time to CNN's site itself said 48 to 40. How can you go on TV and say such easily disputable fact. This has nothing to do with opinion or belief. That and how can you have Shawn Hannity doing the debate wrap up. He makes my head hurt. Perhaps O'Reilly or I would love to see Shep Smith but Hannity does very little to back up his statements with fact.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Karl Rove and Sean Hannity are Republican Party propagandists. Did you really expect anything different?

 

[Thump553]

I doubt many FoxNews viewers stray to any other national news source (Rush not considered a news source).

BTW I saw part of that segment and considered Rove's presentation a truely fine job of spinning. As opposed to Chris Matthews' hysterical and overblown meltdown after the first debate, Rove cherrypicked what he wanted and came to the conclusion that Romney accomplished what he needed to do-which quickly became Faux's theme of the day. Rove really knows how to polish a turd.

 

[nextJin]

Apparently you don't listen to Hannitys radio show at 3pm est on Sirius Patriot 125.

He is only marginally better than Limbaugh, and spouts continuous anti Obama nonsense. He is the Republican attack dog.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Hannity is far worse than Limbaugh when it comes to outright dishonesty and propagandizing. His show is 100% about pushing the Republican party line and attacking Obama. At least Limbaugh's show is entertaining, and he's capable of humor and an original thought. Hannity is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP.

 

[Juddog]

Karl Rove and Sean Hannity are Republican Party propagandists. Did you really expect anything different?

Karl Rove has been the big brains behind the current neocon movement. He's the guy behind the scenes pulling strings on the puppets.

 

[Throckmorton]

Someone explain this to me... Does Karl Rove not have the same reputation as a bad guy among Republicans as he does among everyone else?

 

[SandEagle]

he should be tried for war crimes

 

[cybrsage]

he should be tried for war crimes

Good job! That was funny.

 

[cybrsage]

Someone explain this to me... Does Karl Rove not have the same reputation as a bad guy among Republicans as he does among everyone else?

I see him as a bad guy. I see him as the evil force behind Bush, who (from what I can tell) is a good guy at heart. He was very effective, though, which is why dems hate him so much and why many reps love him. I do not like the guy. I am sure there are a lot of reps who are ambivalent towards him, but you will always have the rabid ones who say the ends justify the means.

EDIT: I do not watch him, just like I do not watch Hannity or listen to Rush.

 

[Juddog]

Someone explain this to me... Does Karl Rove not have the same reputation as a bad guy among Republicans as he does among everyone else?

The GOP loves Karl Rove.

 

[her209]

63+60=123

I sure hope Rovie wasn't talking about percentages.

:biggrin:

 

[buckshot24]

I was watching Fox News last night and Karl Rove was talking about CNN's poll and listing 63 to 60 for Obama and saying little difference. Yet you go at that time to CNN's site itself said 48 to 40. How can you go on TV and say such easily disputable fact. This has nothing to do with opinion or belief. That and how can you have Shawn Hannity doing the debate wrap up. He makes my head hurt. Perhaps O'Reilly or I would love to see Shep Smith but Hannity does very little to back up his statements with fact.

Obviously he wasn't talking about who won the debate. Do you really think he'd try and push that it was 63-60 out of 100?

I can't remember the stat he was comparing but he was talking about the approvals in two different questions Obama had 63 and Romney had 60.

The fact that all the liberals swallow the OP's characterization is a very telling.

 

[Juddog]

Obviously he wasn't talking about who won the debate. Do you really think he'd try and push that it was 63-60 out of 100?

I can't remember the stat he was comparing but he was talking about the approvals in two different questions Obama had 63 and Romney had 60.

The fact that all the liberals swallow the OP's characterization is a very telling.

If you're watching Faux news and believe it over everything else, you are swallowing something alright.

 

[buckshot24]

If you're watching Faux news and believe it over everything else, you are swallowing something alright.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? The OP misrepresented Rove, period.

 

[cybrsage]

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? The OP misrepresented Rove, period.

When libs are caught saying something wrong (or outright lying) about a republican, they either continue to say the proven lie is not a lie or they change the subject. I think it is part of the broken gene they carry to be unable to simply admit someone was wrong in something bad said about a republican.

 

[Jhhnn]

Rove seized upon the most favorable poll question for Romney- if people thought he was qualified to be CinC.

Romney accomplished that with "Me Too" throughout... echoing Obama almost entirely. Obama pointed out that he's flip-flopped so many time to get there that it's hard to keep track...

In other aspects, Romney didn't fare nearly as well.

 

[buckshot24]

Rove seized upon the most favorable poll question for Romney- if people thought he was qualified to be CinC.

Romney accomplished that with "Me Too" throughout... echoing Obama almost entirely. Obama pointed out that he's flip-flopped so many time to get there that it's hard to keep track...

In other aspects, Romney didn't fare nearly as well.

So you agree that the libs who attacked Rove over this did so in error?

 

[Jhhnn]

So you agree that the libs who attacked Rove over this did so in error?

Yes.

Rove's just putting the best spin on a dismal performance that he can, trying to keep the faithful in the pews... What he cites is not representative of the debate as a whole, although he'll try like to convince us that it is.

It's remarkable just how many people want to believe in Romney, how they have such incredibly short memories when he tells 'em something they want to hear, even when he said to opposite not long ago. He's flip-flopped so many times on so many issues, particularly on foreign policy, that trusting him at all is foolish. It's impossible to predict what he'll actually do, other than to look at who's advising him of foreign policy-

http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...olicy-team-17-of-24-advisors-are-bush-neocons

Ready for Bush Neocon retreads to run our foreign policy? Vote for Mitt! He's swell!

 

[buckshot24]

Yes.

Rove's just putting the best spin on a dismal performance that he can, trying to keep the faithful in the pews... What he cites is not representative of the debate as a whole, although he'll try like to convince us that it is.

Don't you think that stat is pretty important? Especially considering Obama has been commander in chief for 4 years?

 

[ericlp]

who cares... who is Carl Rove? He was a nobody in bush days and still a nobody today. He has no affiliation with the government. He holds no title... You might as well be listening to Joe "the plumber" ... What does Carl have? Hmmm, Carl the bush lover? How about Carl the retard lover? Oh well... Next....

 

[cybrsage]

who cares... who is Carl Rove? He was a nobody in bush days and still a nobody today.

Holy crap, I take back the other post being the winner of the most idiotic post of the day award. You still win, but this one far surpasses the other! Carl Rove, the man who was the driving force behind Bush (an unpopular president with a failing economy fighting two unpopular wars) winning the election was a nobody?

Wow.

 

[Jhhnn]

Don't you think that stat is pretty important? Especially considering Obama has been commander in chief for 4 years?

I think it means that a lot of people want to believe in Romney, as I said, and won't look past the day before yesterday to do it.

Romney uses the same methods he used to fleece investors & companies for years- tell the owners one thing, the employees another, the target investors a different fairy tale & his own investors got yet a different rosy picture. Divide & Profit. It works for him in business, not so well when those pronouncements are a matter of public record.

 

[buckshot24]

who cares... who is Carl Rove? He was a nobody in bush days and still a nobody today. He has no affiliation with the government. He holds no title... You might as well be listening to Joe "the plumber" ... What does Carl have? Hmmm, Carl the bush lover? How about Carl the retard lover? Oh well... Next....

He's raised quite a bit of money for some Super Pacs.

 

[buckshot24]

I think it means that a lot of people want to believe in Romney, as I said, and won't look past the day before yesterday to do it.

Romney uses the same methods he used to fleece investors & companies for years- tell the owners one thing, the employees another, the target investors a different fairy tale & his own investors got yet a different rosy picture. Divide & Profit. It works for him in business, not so well when those pronouncements are a matter of public record.

Get off your soap box. Rove was right and the blind libs in this thread were wrong.