Throwing the book at Obama

Literally:

Sign of the times - Caption under picture of naked man arrested at Obama's Philadelphia rally:

Campaign commentary: A police officer tries to protect the naked man's modesty with a strategically placed 'Vote 2010' sign

Perfect use, in my opinion, of Obama propaganda at a rally intended to give the administration cover when they invariably lose in November.  Who will they blame?  Before you say Bush, because there is plenty of that  here too, the loss will be laid in the laps of the voters Obama supposedly came to woo:

'I think the pundits are wrong. I think we're going to win. But you've got to prove them wrong,' Mr Obama said, jabbing his finger toward the audience.

'They're counting on you staying home. If that happens they win.'

Now on to the Bush/Republican bashing:

"There are three million Americans who would not be working again if not for the economic plan Joe and I put in place, that's the truth," President Obama told a crowd in Philadelphia.

"The hole we're climbing out of is so deep. The Republicans messed up so bad, left such a big mess, that there is [sic] still millions of Americans without work," he added.

  Obama seems to have spared the crowd his Slurpee-sipping saga but that didn't stop him from whining.  Obama began with a litany of baseless accusations and fear mongering over who is funding the Republicans' in the race to November.  This was the toned-down version my fellow Slurpee sippers:

More from Karl Rove on Christine O'Donnell

Last night's statements about Christine O'Donnell From Rove and the NRSC establishment were every bit as newsworthy as O'Donnell's upset victory over the establishment candidate Mike Castle. It is clear Rove was smarting as he believed, as many did, the nomination of O'Donnell put a GOP win in Delaware out of reach. In the light of day, clearer heads prevailed at the NRSC as well they should. But what does Rove have to say today? As you will see in the video below he isn't backing off much though what he says here will be nothing compared to the full full nuts and sluts treatment the Democratic candidate Chris Coons has in store. I wasn't expecting the "balls to the wall" support Rush Limbaugh asked of his listeners today but Rove would do well to take some of Rush's advice; save the slime for the Democrat:

Karl Rove Predicts Tsunami

After looking at the available polling data in Congressional races, Karl finds 34 seats where Republicans lead their Democratic opponents.   This is just the beginning:

It could get worse. Of the 36 polls in which Democratic incumbents led, Republican challengers were within three points in 12 contests and within five points in 18 others. By contrast, in the 55 polls in which the GOP leads, the Republican is ahead by more than five points in 36. And in all but two instances in which data are available, the Democrat incumbents are significantly better known than their GOP challengers. As these challengers become better known, they're likely to rise in the polls.

Indiana's second district is a good example. Republican State Rep. Jackie Walorski trails Democratic Congressman Joe Donnelly by only 44% to 46%, according to an August American Action Forum poll. But Ms. Walorski is known by 78% of voters while Mr. Donnelly's name ID is a near-saturation 97%. This is a very winnable seat for the GOP.

 Rove gets into the numbers toward the end of this 7 minute clip.  If you're interested in the math skip ahead to the 5 minute mark where Karl breaks out the famous white board.  The first 5 minutes he discusses Obama's class warrior strategy that seems to be such a loser he even had trouble filling seats in his college campus appearance in Ohio yesterday.  Rove sums it up saying "all across America we can hear the sound of teeth gnashing in Democratic headquarters, profanities being said in cars as they travel from campaign event to campaign event.  I bet there are a lot of Democrats who go home and cry themselves to sleep at night."  All this points to a shake up like Democrats haven't seen in a long time.  Rove predicts we may well wake up November 3rd to find a Republican win in a seat we couldn't have imagined likely filled by a candidate we have never heard of.

Karl Rove On The House Republican Retreat

Much has been made of the President's appearance at the House Republican retreat on Friday. MSNBC changed their lineup Friday night to host a one hour special touting the genius of Obama's success in handing those nasty Republicans their hats and sending back where they belong, in the political wilderness. It was obnoxious. It was also a gross overstatement but we've come to expect nothing less from that network.

It was an amazing moment according to Democrats:

The moment President Obama began his address to Republicans in Baltimore today, I began to receive e-mails from Democrats: Here's an except from one of them: "I don't know whether to laugh or cry that it took a f$$@&$* year for Obama to step into the ring and start throwing some verbal blows... I'm definitely praying at mass on Sunday morning that this Obama doesn't take another 12 month vacation."

This e-mail comes from a very influential Democrat.

Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months. Debating a law professor is kind of foolish: the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama's weakness -- his penchant for nuance -- into a strength. Plenty of Republicans asked good and probing questions, but Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president. (By the way: can we stop with the Obama needs a teleprompter jokes?)

I watched most of this event on Friday and saw a defensive thin-skinned Obama pretend he was suddenly all about bipartisanship. As usual, Obama laid a heaping helping of blame on Republicans but was forced to admit the Republicans had ideas , that he'd seen them and considered them. Perhaps it's just me but didn't he just spend an entire year claiming the exact opposite? Maybe this is why most voters don't trust Obama's statements about the economy. Obama has lost the trust of a significant portion of the voting public because he campaigned on being a pragmatic centrist but governed as a left leaning ideologue. It will take more than a day trip to Baltimore to undo that image in the minds of voters. I will let Karl Rove make the rest of the case, Friday was no win for Obama:

Karl Rove Predicts there Could be A Political Earthquake this Year

Karl Rove discussed with Sean Hannity potential strategies Obama may choose. The obvious sensible choice would be to move to the center and give up on health care but Rove sees Obama opting for the continued pressure for health care while feigning the part of "Mr. Populist." Obama's performance in Ohio earlier is reviewed as well.

Rove often gives the most measured assessments of the prospects for the GOP in the midterms. After Massachusetts, however, Rove declares, "This could be an earthquake this fall." Hannity refers to analysis from Newt Gingrich who suggests if the trend continues as we've seen there could be 150 Democratic seats at risk. Of course Rove goes nowhere near that prediction but clearly he sees a seismic shift in the future.





Rove posted a photo on twitter the other night laying out the most favorable scenario for Democrats in the coming 2010 Senate races:

Left-leaning analyst Nate Silver does a full report on the state of Senate races and finds Democrats with few prospects.  Stock up on the popcorn folks, it's going to be an interesting year.

Karl Rove Divorced - Lefty Blogs See Hypocrisy

Via Memeorandum

Politico reports Karl Rove and his wife of 24 years Darby obtained a divorce in Texas according to spokesperson Dana Perino:

“Karl Rove and his wife, Darby, were granted a divorce last week," said Perino. "The couple came to the decision mutually and amicably, and they maintain a close relationship and a strong friendship. There will be no further comment, and the family requests that its privacy be respected.”

The Roves were married in January 1986.

Stress and strain of the White House years was cited as a reason for the divorce according to a family friend. Naturally the lefty blogs went wild with the news. Rove, after all, is one of their favorite targets. Andrew Sullivan writes "The Marriage Defender ...gets a divorce." Sullivan tries to be fair(?) of course noting Rove's opposition to gay marriage was politically driven. Rove is not a homophobe in private according to Sullivan. Sullivan links to Glenn Greenwald's dissertation on Rove's apparent hypocrisy while suggesting that Greenwald's fury is in part provoked by the fact that his own partner can not reside in the US. I think I am missing the relevance of that point and have absolutely no clue how that relates to Rove, but I digress.

To be sure, Rove has defended traditional marriage and as Greenwald argues that certainly has included the idea of permanence depending on your religious background.  Greenwald's suggests that if Rove, Rush Limbaugh and others who oppose gay marriage were forced to stay married to their wives they would change their tunes on "traditional marriage" quickly and give Greenwald and Sullivan the gay marriages they so desire.  This argument is absurd.  First, neither Rove nor Limbaugh have the power to stop the country from legalizing gay marriage.  Gay marriage was overturned in California and Maine, two very liberal states, Rove and Limbaugh had nothing to do with it.

Second, here's a newsflash for Mr. Greenwald, gays divorce too.  He best be prepared to force those in the gay community into permanent marriage once they are legally allowed to marry.   Greenwald also presumes that it is Rove, not his wife, who wanted the divorce.  Would forcing her to remain married give Greenwald some odd sense of satisfaction?  If it does, he is not a rational human being.  Blaming Rove and Limbaugh for the exile of Greenwald's partner is as irrational as demanding that anyone who believes marriage is between a man and woman be forced to stay married.  The bottom line, Rove's divorce has nothing to do with gay marriage.  Greenwald and Sullivan need better arguments.

Thanks to Dahlhalla at POWIP for linking!

Rove Corrects Matt Lauer's Revisionist History on Afghanistan

Jake Tapper points out two direct references to failures of the Bush/Cheney administration made directly and indirectly in tonight's Afghanistan speech:

1) President Obama said starting in early 2003 and "for the next six years the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world." And "while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated."

2) In his 3rd graph the president made a reference to the Taliban as "a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."

One might say "Blame Bush," is the only consistent strategy this administration has at its disposal.  Obama's "Blame Bush" approach to the presidency frequently involves a lot of revisionist history rarely if ever challenged by the adoring media.  Matt Lauer set the stage for this early in the day as he attempts to blame the need for Obama to send additional troops to Afghanistan on the above mentioned "failures" of the Bush administration.  Unfortunately for Lauer, he attempted to rewrite history during an interview with Karl Rove.  Rove sets the record and Lauer straight, leaving Lauer fumbling for an alternate strategy to have his "gotcha" moment with Rove.  Matt should know by now there are no "gotcha" moments with Rove who can outwit the likes of Lauer with one hand tied behind his back.

This is the highlight from the following clip which shows just a portion of the interview:

ROVE: Well look, first of all, they, resources were sent as they were needed, but I would remind you this, President Obama is in no position whatsoever to criticize what President Bush did. Because in 2007, President Obama, then a member of the United States Senate, voted against war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. If this was so vital, then why did he not speak out? He was chairman of a committee overseeing NATO. He could have easily called a hearing to say, "I'm concerned about this issue." He did not. The Foreign Relations committee had three hearings on Afghanistan. He bothered to show up at one, and I can find no evidence he raised a single point or asked a single question. So President Obama is not in a place to be critical of, of this. He can look back and rewrite history, whatever, but at the time, he didn't speak out on this.

Read the entire transcript below the jump.
H/T: Yid with Lid

Rove with the White Board Explains Health Care Costs

Karl Rove explains about 3 1/2 minutes into this video costs of the current health care reform for the 7.5 million additional people who will be insured after the reform is passed. One interesting point I heard in this was that hospitals may be balking at how few would be insured. The cooperation of hospitals, PhRMA and insurance were built on the notion there would be many more "customers" offsetting the cuts they agreed to in order to pass reform. There is much more to come in the debate and as noted here it will likely get ugly.



Clip via Breitbart

Reason vs Insanity

First the reason: Karl Rove lays out why the Obama mission to Copenhagen deserved to fail. He goes on to school Juan Williams on what led to the economic crash last October. This is Karl Rove at his finest



Then onto the insanity of the ravings of the mad woman Janeane Garofalo. Listening to her chastise the white power movement led by the Glenn Becks, the Michelle Bachmans, the Rush Limbaughs,” is about as insane as it gets. You have to wonder if she ever listens to her own words. Tom Friedman nods his head in complete agreement with her as if the two of them have some insight into the thoughts of people who feel fed up with out of control government and know more about them than they know about themselves. How grandiose can they possibly be?



H/T: Memeorandum