Image 01 Image 02 Image 03



This video of Karl Rove handing Bill Burton (former Obama press spokesman) his head on a platter has made the rounds.  Burton played the “blame Bush” and “blame Republicans” game as an excuse for all of Obama’s failures, and Rove eviscerated those arguments.

Bashing Rove is in fashion these days, but watch this video carefully.  In addition to be a prolific fundraiser for American Crossroads, which played a critical role in the 2010 elections, Rove is one of the more articulate spokesmen for taking on the Obama message machine.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Cowboy Curtis | August 22, 2011 at 10:11 am

I think Rove has a lot of value in many ways, and I’m not of a mind that we should chase him into the swamps just because he was a force behind some of W’s less wonderful ideas. But if he can’t play nice with the top of our field…..

For all his faults, nobody can accuse him of being inarticulate.

Yes quite articulate. Wish he was articulate when he allowed the Proggs to destroy George W Bush and America’s right to National Defense.

I watched the Democrat Party’s daily assault begin shortly after 9/11/2001 and after watching their acts of sabotage I vowed in 2003 to never vote for a Democrat (even if it Reagan were running as a Democrat)

The one thing America must unite is National Defense however Karl Rove allowed the Socialist Fisters power to divide; Rove missed the entire episode of Vietnam, Jane Fonda and their ‘United for Peace and Justice’ anti-American assault when that happened.

For Rove, it was more important to protect Big Donor Republicans who were unhappy with “Bush’s War” (I personally met quite a few of these Big Donors when I lived in NYC). Rove was more interested in protected that Ruling Class campaign cash than he was in defending the Nation.

At least he admitted this big mistake after he wrote his book when it didn’ much matter.

I am no fan of Karl Rove but Bill Burton is a complete idiot. His smug, self-righteousness is so much like Obama that it makes me want to wretch.

The major problem I have with Rove is “his Republicans” will be much more like Boehner and McConnell than actual conservatives. Filling the House and Senate with Rove RINOs won’t help and will in fact hurt the nation.

We need to be done with “Compassionate Conservatism” as it is simply the big-spending, statist agenda in disguise.

I LOVE this comment on Perry’s job creation record near the end: “Those jobs were with the help of the president.”

So the POTUS’ programs are credited for jobs in Texas, but not the job situation in the other 49 states?

The primary reason the left hates Rove so much is that he is a very smart guy, a fact which they steadfastly refuse to concede. They cannot admit that because the survival of the current form of statist liberalism — centralized governmental control over economic planning and policy, coupled with dominating voter rolls with entitlement acolytes — requires the left to keep pitching the meme that Republicans and conservatives in general are the stupid people. With Tea Partiers, of course, they have upped the stakes by openly and repeatedly claiming they are racists, now with even their Vice-President asserting they are terrorists! Wait . . . who are the stupid people again?

In order to explain Rove’s remarkable ability to engage the public debate, either on his own or as an adviser, the left had to have a way to explain his success as something other than that the guy was smart. Thus, they have always accused Rove of being an evil and conspiratorial manipulator of circumstances behind the scenes. Long ago, that notion took root with some Republicans as well.

But the truth is that he really is a very intelligent guy, as is clear from the manner in which he responded to and bested Bill Burton in this exchange.

One (among many) effective moments was when he pointed out the Obama legacy of intransigence on Freddie and Fanny reform back in 2006, with him willingly participating as an obstructionist in a Democrat party position, one that significantly contributed to the housing bubble that finally burst. The “finisher” on Texas was the coup de grâce in this debate.

Americans are slowly but surely coming to recognize that it is a dead-end economic road we are now on, and that it’s proponents are increasingly stubborn, thoughtless and destructive people who are wittingly or unwittingly out to finish off the American dream. We can only hope that as 2012 approaches it will become less slow and more sure. One front and center reminder is by recalling President Obama repeatedly promising that he would be “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Just ask a Democrat this . . . “So, how’s that fundamental transformation thingy working out for you?”

    If not for the multitude of ‘intellectually credentialed and collectivist CEOs’ representing the Progressive Republican Ruling Class Causus who love their Liberal Statism more than they love America, the Constitution, right to property, right to Individualism, right to National Defense, right to Sovereignty, right to free speech and Life,Liberty and pursuit of Happiness then perhaps Ruling Class leader Karl Rove would have been intelligent enough to thwart the Democrat Party’s distructive path?

    The Ruling Class is at war with America’s Country Class.

    The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It by Angelo Codeville

      Heaving baseless polemical crud is not a way to “win” an argument, unless you have an audience of statist liberals you are trying to fire up just before election day.

    WarEagle82 in reply to Trochilus. | August 22, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    I don’t think Rove is stupid. But I do KNOW he is all too much in favor of an elitist, country-club, big government, statist Republican agenda that is only different in degree rather than in kind from the elitist, country-club, big government, statist Democrat agenda.

    I don’t want an elitist snob running my life or the lives of my kids and grandchildren. Rove thinks he and his friends have the right to run the lives of others…


      Silly me . . . here I thought that President Barack Obama was the political adversary, and that he and his Administration’s ongoing failed efforts aimed at turning the America economy around were the legitimate targets du jour.

      Well, I guess we should leave it up to you to formulate the obverse but nevertheless Obama-legitimizing “economic warfare” arguments against certain “elitist, country club” Republicans . . . those at whom you apparently feel compelled to aim your cheap pot-shots and vague resentment-laden generalizations.

      You know, I hear rumors that the Obama “plan” for the economy, which he has finally agreed to reveal in a few weeks — once he finishes signing off on a shorter version that is vague enough for public consumption — will include recommendations for significant additional stimulus-style spending.

      But never mind that . . . just keep up your drumbeat of “elitist, country-club” snark, because it will no doubt prove to be such a key element in the important task of uniting the opposition to Obama.

        WarEagle82 in reply to Trochilus. | August 22, 2011 at 2:39 pm

        Silly you, indeed. Though Obama and his ilk are clearly an adversary, that does not mean that Rove and his ilk are another adversary similar in kind with differences in degree.

        Of course, since I clearly stated that in my post it must have alluded you.

        I don’t want Obama and his allies running my life. But I don’t want Rove and his allies running my life either. As a proud TEA Party supporter I’d prefer to get put government back in its constitutionally appointed role and run my own life. As a citizen of the United States I don’t think that is asking too much.

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | August 22, 2011 at 2:43 pm


          (Cursed English homonyms!)

          Gee, I’m sure looking forward to your explanation of exactly how Karl Rove and his allies are attempting to run your life today. I must have missed that.

          As for you “eluding” my prior point that was critical of you engaging in an obverse form of economic and class warfare, I’ll just add that, in my opinion it is an ugly business.

          The best proof is that it has been used to stir hateful divisions amongst people by the worst of histories tyrants, and in my book it has no place in Republican politics.

          Let Obama continue to play that card and the race card, and we should all call him out on it.

          Principals of economic freedom are just as vital for the nation’s continued well-being as are all of the many fundamental freedoms we enjoy. Success through hard work and initiative ought to continue to be qualities that are admired, not ones that are singled out by the President as suitable targets for fostering resentment, and the reach of the taxman.

        WarEagle82 in reply to Trochilus. | August 22, 2011 at 4:15 pm

        “Gee, I’m sure looking forward to your explanation of exactly how Karl Rove and his allies are attempting to run your life today. I must have missed that.”

        Gee, I guess you missed that part where Rove and Bush 43 grew federal government spending by 50% in just 8 years. As government expands individual liberty contracts. There is an obvious and inverse relationship between the size of government and liberty. But perhaps you missed those little experiments in the USSR and PRC that proved that point…

        Rove and his buddies want an ever-increasing federal government to manage the lives of the little people. I disagree with him on that point. It is my life, and not his, to live…

          I didn’t miss any of them and am quite familiar with the history, particularly that of the Soviet Union.

          Your attempted comparison is not only clumsy and inapt it is downright preposterous.

          But maybe that is what is to be expected from someone with your penchant for “economic and class warfare” arguments. Take some time to study the “dekulakization” program of the Stalin era — and how the Soviets permanently solidified their political power. Agricultural collectivization was all based on economic attacks on the kulaks that turned into exile and mass murder of millions through starvation.

          Mow, I’m sure there are many Bush-43 Administration policies I could and would take issue with, and several political tactics of Karl Rove as well — such as remaining silent too much in the face of harsh and unwarranted criticism, or not more forcefully attempting to reform illegitimately protected Democrat turf — Fanny & Freddy.

          But it would never occur to me to attempt to compare the policies of George Bush to those of the Soviets or the PRC.

          Correction: “Now” not “Mow”

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | August 22, 2011 at 11:07 pm

          That “degree” and “kind” thing appears to have stumped you.

          I am sure you are a student of history and the Soviet Union in particular. You hold degrees in Political Science, History, and Economics. You spent 1/4 of your life abroad, including time in the FSU immediately after the dissolution of the empire, etc…

          Never mind I never compared Bush 43 directly to the USSR or the PRC. I simply noted that as government increases individual liberty decreases.

          Bush vastly increased the size and scope of the government. Rove was the architect of those increases. Obama has increased government more and has grander plans yet. Do you really want to argue that more government is better? Again, that “degree” and “kind” thing…


          When I said:

          “But it would never occur to me to attempt to compare the policies of George Bush to those of the Soviets or the PRC.”

          You responded by saying:

          “Never mind I never compared Bush 43 directly to the USSR or the PRC. I simply noted that as government increases individual liberty decreases.”

          Really? Lets examine the way you lumped it all together, and what I was specifically responding to.

          Here was one specific paragraph:

          “Gee, I guess you missed that part where Rove and Bush 43 grew federal government spending by 50% in just 8 years. As government expands individual liberty contracts. There is an obvious and inverse relationship between the size of government and liberty. But perhaps you missed those little experiments in the USSR and PRC that proved that point…

          Thus, the proximity of content and the flow of the argument strongly suggested to me that a comparison was being made.

          Now, I quite agree with you in general about the size of government, but I was saying that the above was inapt. We do have a long and storied history of participatory involvement in our government, and a still responsive constitutional system that we can work within and appeal to protect economic freedom and individual liberty.

          In my book, it has always appropriate to challenge various forms of big government intrusion in our lives. Thankfully, that is happening today, much of it focused through the active participation of Tea Partiers by infusing the public debate with their challenges.

          If you had made the comparison to the Obamaphiles, I would have been much less likely to challenge the point. The fact is, a considerable number of them — including the top guy himself — are strongly Marxist in both philosophical and tactical orientation; they have persistently displayed an open redistributionist policy orientation, coupled with an obvious contemptuous disregard for economic freedom and initiative; they are extremely divisive by regularly employing tactical efforts to turn Americans against one another by engaging in class and economic warfare as a way to consolidate their political power; they have even rather openly attacked and threatened media outlets who challenge or question any their policies; . . . the list goes on and on.

          The key differences between the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration are not just a small matter of degree.

I’m afraid Brett Baier’s questions and the mindset they reveal is part of the problem. I expect better from FOX. It’s clear that the Dems talking points are still controlling the tenor of the debate – but that is shifting.

As for the Dem of the week, Bill Burton – how can any person who makes their living with words, hear his nuanced answers, his propagandist answers and not feel the hairs on the back of their neck rise up and scream! Those words are so calculated and so dishonest, so carefully constructed to paper over the truth – it’s maddening. Yet they know, if they say those words, those are the words that will get quoted, will make it in the paper, and presented as truth, only because those are the words that were spoken.

That’s why talk radio, and blogs, are SO important. Only in these venues are we able to take those phony constructs apart word by dishonest word.

Good for Rove. And dammit, Baier, LEARN. LEARN!

Obama cannot run successfully on his record for re-election. “It’s the economy, stoopid” is the only message republicans need to win in 2012.

Q & O has an excellent post titled “The growth of the regulatory state” which exemplifies why Obama will continue to be an economic train wreck for this nation.

    I am not convinced that Obama cannot “run on his record” and win. There are people out there demanding he do more of the very things that failed and put us in this position.

    “It’s the stupid electorate, stupid” is closer to the point here. 30-plus years of “educational malpractice” has left all too many voters incapable of reason and that plays directly into Obama’s hands when you consider his absolute control of the MSM.

      “It’s the stupid electorate, stupid…”

      Your point is well taken. After all, Obama was elected in 2008 by a good margin of error.

      But I must rebut with Honest Abe who said “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

      I do believe the people out there demanding he do more of the very things that failed are now vastly outnumbered by those with buyers remorse – and those who weren’t fooled the first time around.

      If 2012 proves me wrong, then I’ll be the one singing “It’s the stupid electorate, stupid…” the loudest!

I detest Rove and his “ilk” but he did a fine job here.
and he did it without insulting Burton or being smug as Burton was towards him.

    scooby509 in reply to dmacleo. | August 22, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    By his “ilk” do you mean political strategists? If so, are there any concrete reasons why you detest them?

      1) Rove detests the Tea Party.
      2) Rove detests Palin.
      3) Rove did a great job of letting the media set up 2008. Vitriol for Bush is what brought us the current man-child in chief.
      4) Rove was part of the big spending Bush did. Soooo tired of hearing lefties point to deficits from pre-2008. So what they weren’t huge, but that set the table for the crap argument we get now.

      WarEagle82 in reply to scooby509. | August 22, 2011 at 11:13 pm

      Rove’s “ilk” are country club Republicans who want to grow the government and manage the lives of “the peons” through their enlightened despotism. That really ought not be too hard to see…

Interesting. It was notable that Rove at least attempted to be civil while the other guy was aggressively nasty. I also got the distinct impression that they detest each other.

    WarEagle82 in reply to irv. | August 22, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    I kind of picked up on that little “love-fest” too. These guys don’t like each other but then I don’t see much to like in either of the arrogant jerks who think they know best how to run the lives of 300 million American citizens…

Rove is brilliant and articulate, but he puts power ahead of principle. He’s an enemy of the Tea Party because of the Tea Party’s anti-establishment bent.

Rove’s big government “conservatism” backfired and helped to create perfect conditions for the rise of the Dems in 2006 and 2008. He’s too cynical, too short-sighted, and he puts cronyism before country.

Ceteris paribus, I’d always choose someone from outside of the Rove network for any position of government influence.