The three most prominent faces of resistance to Rep. Todd Akin in his Senate race with Claire McCaskill (D-MO) are Karl Rove, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. We already know that Rove's feelings of disgust for Akin reach the level of joking about the congressman's murder to a bunch of wealthy donors. Since Priebus and Cornyn appear to be following Rove's lead when it comes to withholding financial support for Akin, is it worth asking how much influence the former Bush senior adviser has over them?
When Akin made a bizarre comment during an interview in August about 'legitimate rape', the establishment suddenly had an excuse to withdraw its support while also calling for Akin to step down.
Earlier this year, Cliff Kincaid produced a source who charged that one of the reasons Rove so detests Akin is that the latter simply would not vote the establishment line during the Bush administration, to include "No Child left Behind". Which is the bigger mistake, Akin's comment this past August or that woeful piece of legislation? Akin's comment or Rove's joke about murdering him for staying in the race despite pressure to drop out?
Rove, et. al. also had a plausible excuse for denying financial support because Akin fell so far back in the polls, it would have been money wasted.
There's a problem. Akin has been scratching back into the race and still is getting no support from the establishment.
Now, the Akin campaign is outright claiming that Rove, et. al. would rather have McCaskill win than see Todd Akin take her seat.
Republican Rep. Todd Akin’s campaign is accusing influential GOP-affiliated organizations that refuse to spend money to help the Republican senate candidate of genuinely wanting Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill to win the hotly contested senate contest in Missouri.
Rick Tyler, a senior adviser to Akin, told The Daily Caller this week that Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s National Republican Senatorial Committee are trying to undermine Akin.
“I believed at one time they did want Akin to win, even though they didn’t want to admit it,” Tyler told TheDC. “I’m convinced now they don’t want Akin to win.”
In August, Akin told a news station that “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down” if a “legitimate rape” occurs, prompting outrage and condemnation from both sides of the political aisle.
The race might even determine which party will control the U.S. Senate next year. But both Crossroads GPS and the NRSC, which are spending millions to help Republican Senate candidates across the country, vowed not to support Akin in any way after they determined his rape comment threatened to hurt other Republican candidates across the country, according to Tyler.
“It is incomprehensible to me how Rove and Crossroads GPS and the NRSC could possibly stay out of this race” unless they want Akin to lose in November, Tyler told TheDC in a phone interview.
The establishment is choosing to put itself into a box here. If Akin wins, the fire within the conservative wing of the Republican party will be given a huge dose of oxygen because a conservative candidate will have triumphed over prominent liberal incumbent without the help of the establishment. If Akin loses, especially if by a narrow margin, it will have meant establishment pride triumphed over conservatism at best, and that extreme liberals are preferred over conservative Republicans at worst.
Another dynamic is at work here is the establishment's double standard. Mitt Romney was their guy; he won. Conservative voters were not happy with the selection. The establishment asked conservative voters to get behind their guy whether they liked him or not. Conservative voters did just that. In fact, in the wake of Romney's first two debate performances, conservative support for him has reached an energized high.
The natural inverse would be that if a conservative candidate is going against a liberal incumbent, the establishment should do the same.
In the case of Rove, Priebus, and Cornyn, hypocrisy appears to be on full display.
St. Louis Fox Television affiliate KTVI has a news report on tonight's debate between Akin and McCaskill:
Newt Gingrich definitely has a way of contrasting and simplifying things. In an interview with the Daily Caller, he called out the Republican Party establishment for its inexplicable treatment of Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), who is in a dead heat with extreme liberal Claire McCaskill for a U.S. Senate seat in Missouri.
Newt pulls no punches here, calling Charlie Crist a 'snake' while pointing to the establishment's decision to back him two years ago over Marco Rubio. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who heads the National Republican Senate Committee (NRSC) was wrong then and he's wrong now.
Gingrich also singled out Karl Rove, again referring to the Fox News contributor's comments at a fundraiser that involved joking about Akin's murder. At the essence of Gingrich's take here is that the Republican establishment seems to have more animus for the conservative wing of its party than it does for the Democrats. That sentiment is clearly not mutual when one considers how conservatives have rallied behind Romney.
The conservative wing of the Party clearly would rather have Romney than Obama but it doesn't seem to be getting reciprocal sentiment from the establishment wing.
Though not doing so by name, at the end of this clip, Gingrich calls out the likes of Rove, Cornyn, and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus when he says that anyone who refuses to support Akin in a race that is neck and neck, would rather have Harry Reid remain on as Senate majority leader than have Akin in the U.S. Senate.
One of the consequences of Karl Rove's over-the-top comment about the murder of U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri, Todd Akin, has been a closer examination of the entire Akin controversy. What we're learning is that Akin is more of a Tea Party candidate than perhaps most of us knew; his bonafides in that regard may just be the the burr under Rove's saddle. If so, it would also show that Bush's "brain" knows how to hold grudges, has a long memory, and is far less conservative than many realized.
Cliff Kincaid over at USA Survival has some interesting information about Akin's propensity for not yielding to political pressure when casting votes in the House. Kincaid quotes John Putnam, the state coordinator in Missouri for the Tea Party Patriots:
Putnam says the reason the Republican officials wanted him (Akin) out of the race had nothing to do with abortion. Rather, he said, Akin voted as a member of Congress against several Bush Administration big government proposals, has a record of opposing “the party establishment,” and figures to be a Tea Party senator in Washington, D.C. if he wins the Senate race against Democrat Claire McCaskill.
Putnam says he thinks the GOP establishment doesn’t want any more independent voices in the Senate Republican Caucus. “I look at the role of the Tea Party senators who have come along the last couple years. They have shifted the balance away from the more moderate Republican establishment. I have to wonder how afraid they are to elect more of these Tea Party types,” he said.
Akin, who represents Missouri’s 12th District and has been described as an “avid student of the U.S. Constitution,” voted against President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” bill to expand the federal role in education; against Bush’s extravagant expansion of Medicare through what is called Part D, or prescription drug coverage; and against Bush’s federal bailout of Wall Street after the economic collapse in September 2008.
Akin’s website describes him as “one of just 16 legislators who opposed the series of bailouts which rewarded irresponsible behavior with taxpayer dollars in 2008 and 2009.”
Moreover, it appears that a George Soros-funded Super-PAC is responsible for tracking Akin and starting the whole 'legitimate rape' / abortion flap in the first place. The Republican establishment then jumped on it and apparently decided to use this information to attempt to force Akin out of the race, not because of the abortion issue but because the Missouri congressman doesn't seem to compromise on matters the establishment deems important.
The controversy over Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s abortion comments was started by a George Soros-funded Democratic Party Super-PAC and the “bait” was taken by Republican Party officials who wanted him out of the race for other reasons, says John Putnam, Missouri state coordinator for the national Tea Party Patriots group.
The Super-PAC, American Bridge, was started by former conservative turned liberal and homosexual activist David Brock, who also runs the Soros-funded Media Matters group. American Bridge sends “trackers” to follow conservative and Republican candidates in the hope that the candidate makes some controversial statements that can be distorted or taken out of context and used for partisan political purposes.
In this case, Putnam says, Republicans are the ones who used the material against Akin disseminated by American Bridge. “The first few days after the Democrats put out this distorted [abortion] comment, it was the Republican hierarchy that really acted like sharks in the water, striking this fresh meat,” Putnam said.
Isn't it interesting how...
The establishment tells conservatives not to eat its own, to get behind establishment candidates like Mitt Romney, et. al. when they win the primary? Tea Party candidates are painted as extremists who are more interested in cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Yet, if this report is correct, it will have meant that the Republican Party establishment jumped on information provided by a 'tracker' paid by a Soros-funded Super-PAC to get a conservative Tea Party Senatorial candidate out of the race.
Can anyone see the Tea Party doing such a thing?
In fact, during the same fundraiser at which Rove made those despicable comments about Akin getting 'murdered', he encouraged the Party not to go hard after Obama so Republicans could woo independents. Ironically, Rove has no compunction about going hard after Akin by utilizing information provided by a George Soros-backed Super-PAC. Why is Rove not worried about wooing Tea Party voters?
It's the establishment - not the Tea Party - that is looking increasingly like the entity that prefers the whole loaf over the half loaf while wanting to have its cake and it eat too.
Meanwhile, the conservative media appears to have little interest in going after Rove while having no compunction about going hard after Akin.
Yes, that includes Sean Hannity. More irony is that when someone like Hannity sticks by Rove in instances like this, it reinforces the views of independents who think the talk show host is just a partisan hack. Again, such things drive independents away; they don't move them to the right.
When Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), who is in a Senate race to defeat incumbent liberal Democrat Claire McCaskill, used the term 'legitimate rape' in an interview that turned to the subject of abortion, there were basically three arguments from the right for why Akin needed to drop out.
It was a stupid thing to say and Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats.
The comment made him unelectable in a race the Republicans desperately need to win.
He would be a lightning rod nationally for the Democrats' 'War on women' narrative.
Karl Rove, who heads a Super-PAC, as well as Reince Priebus, head of the Republican National Committee, have both said Akin will receive no money from their respective entities. Both men have recently been dealt a heaping helping of irony. Rove, who said something far more egregious than Akin did when he made an grossly irresponsible comment about Akin's murder, now has a double standard problem if he doesn't step down from his politically powerful perch. Priebus, who last month said that even if Akin is tied, "we're not going to send him a penny," might have a very similar issue relative to double standards.
First up, here is Priebus pledging not to send Akin any money, regardless of how competitive the latter's race with McCaskill becomes. At the time this video was recorded, polls showed Akin as much as 10 points behind the incumbent.
A poll taken by PPP on August 28 and 29 has Sen. Claire McCaskill leading Republican challenger Todd Akin by only one point, 45-44. PPP is the same organization that showed McCaskill leading Akin by only one point just after Akin made his stupid remark about rape and reproduction. However, in that poll PPP oversampled Republicans to the tune of 39% R and only 30% D.
In PPP’s latest poll of the race, Republicans made up 35 percent of the sample, while Dems made up 33 percent. Thus, the latest poll is worthy of consideration.
Akin, no doubt, will consider it. The likelihood of him dropping out of the race seems quite small as long as at least one reasonably credible poll shows him basically even with his opponent.
So it would appear that when it comes to the Akin / McCaskill race, we have the unstoppable GOP Establishment force vs. the socially conservative, immovable Senate candidate object. The Akin race is shaping up to be the manifestation of the GOP argument for conservatives to support Romney but in reverse. The establishment tells us constantly... This race is about beating Obama; you need to get behind Romney if for no other reason. The convention showed conservatives are willing to do that.
Here we have an extremely liberal Obama lackey in McCaskill, who threw her entire support behind the Obamacare effort and it's looking like Akin is back in the hunt. The conservatives, in general, have already bought what the establishment is selling when it comes to Romney. It's time for Priebus and the rest of the establishment powers that be to do the same with Akin, else they risk a fate similar to that of the Zax.
Newt invoked the name Gabriele Giffords on Meet the Press while ripping Rove over the latter joking about the murder of Senatorial candidate Todd Akin. Conservative pundits who excuse Rove should ask themselves what their reaction would be if it were the leader of a Democratic Super PAC who joked about the murder of a sitting Republican congressman. Any attempt to excuse Rove's comments is very hypocritical and would be an example of a double standard the right often complains exists on the left.
Much better video of Newt via Daily Caller. Pay particularly close attention to how he literally stuns the other panelists, leaving them completely silent. At one point, he calls out Thomas Friedman, who offered an incredibly lame response after being called out. No one chews up liberals and spits them out as thoroughly as Gingrich does.
Folks, Newt should have been the Republican nominee. Period.
After Senate candidate, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) made that 'legitimate rape' comment, forces within the Republican Party began working furiously to force him out. The RNC stopped contributing to his campaign; ditto for the Super PAC headed by Karl Rove. The comments made by Akin made him unelectable according to the Republican establishment. The fact that he was a social conservative likely made the attempts to force him out all the more forceful.
Akin refused to budge, which significantly rankled the Republican powers that be, including Rove. The degree to which Rove was rankled seemed to be made a bit clearer by what the former senior advisor to George W. Bush said a breakfast with some high dollar donors last week. A reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek was invited to that breakfast by one of the donors. She recorded Rove's comments and what he said was far more egregious than what Akin had said.
On the final morning of the Republican National Convention, Karl Rove took the stage at the Tampa Club to provide an exclusive breakfast briefing to about 70 of the Republican Party’s highest-earning and most powerful donors. During the more than hour-long session, Rove explained to an audience dotted with hedge fund billionaires and investors—including John Paulson and Wilbur Ross—how his super PAC, American Crossroads, will persuade undecided voters in crucial swing states to vote against Barack Obama. He also detailed plans for Senate and House races, and joked, “We should sink Todd Akin. If he’s found mysteriously murdered, don’t look for my whereabouts!”
After this story broke, Rove would apologize to Akin less than 24 hours later.
Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin said he accepted an apology from Republican strategist Karl Rove for a joke about the congressman being “found mysteriously murdered.”
Akin said in a Facebook posting on his campaign website, “I appreciate the call from Karl Rove, and accept the apology.” Rove called Akin Aug. 31, Rick Tyler, an Akin campaign adviser, told the Associated Press. A message seeking comment from Akin’s campaign wasn’t returned Saturday.
Of course, using Rove's standard for what should be cause for Akin to step down would assuredly require Rove himself to step down from having a position of influence in Republican campaigns. Telling jokes about the murder of people who you don't want representing your Party should qualify.
Two highly respected conservative stalwarts - William Murray and Phyllis Schlafly - have both called on Rove to step down. Incidentally, it was Murray who in the days after 9/11, enunciated perfectly who was behind the attacks; he wanted the Bush administration to target the Saudi government. As it turns out, Murray was right and Bush / Rove were wrong.
When Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary saw what appeared to be the penetration of a young boy by Jerry Sandusky in a shower in 2001, he saw evil. He punted when he told head coach Joe Paterno instead of going to police; Paterno knew evil had penetrated his program. He punted too, when he went to Athletic Director Tim Curley and senior vice president Gary Schultz instead of to police. Curley and Schultz punted when Sandusky was let off the hook, a decision endorsed by president Graham Spanier, who essentially sealed the deal.
Each man had his own 'Mike McQueary' moment (MMM).
It was a moment of truth during which, individuals came face to face with evil and after which, they chose complicity with that evil over defeating it. With each passing day, those individuals implicated themselves further with their silence. They had chosen Sandusky's side in one respect; they all had a vested interest in preventing the evil truth from coming out because they were all implicated in suppressing it.
The jig was up in 2011 and Sandusky's defenders paid a price for not coming clean. It was made steeper by how much time had passed without them doing so. It was made much worse by them being found out instead of coming forward.
The heart of the U.S. Government was penetrated by evil too, beginning in at least 1992, when Abdurahman Alamoudi – a Muslim – began buying influence with both political parties. After Clinton was elected, Alamoudi landed a job with the State Department in 1997 as an Islamic affairs advisor. Based on his professed support for Hamas just a few years earlier, it was a 'Mike McQueary' moment for the political establishment.
Another MMM came in October of 2000, when Alamoudi stood on a stage outside the White House and referred to Bill Clinton by name while espousing – through a P.A. system – his support for both Hamas and Hezbollah:
It was as if the Clinton administration's inaction was a foreshadowing of McQueary's behavior. Right outside its window, the occupiers of the White House could see a man who had penetrated America's power centers via the State Department. It's important to keep in mind that establishment Republicans like Senator John McCain and Speaker John Boehner held seats in the Senate and the House, respectively at the time. Was it an MMM for them too?
In what is believed to be the same year that Alamoudi was cheering Hamas and Hezbollah outside the White House, he was also meeting with George W. Bush and Karl Rove, despite the concerns of intelligence officials, that Alamoudi had ties to Osama bin Laden and the “blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdul-Rahman. This would mean that Bush agreed to meet with a man connected to individuals found to be responsible for both World Trade Center attacks, one of which had already taken place.
At that meeting, Karl Rove was handed a book entitled, The Cultural Atlas of Islam. It was authored by a man identified as a co-founder of two Muslim Brotherhood groups – The International Institute of Islamic Thought and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS). Was the book vetted? If so, it didn't stop meetings between Bush, Rove, and individuals tied to the Brotherhood, from taking place. 'Mike McQueary' moment?
In June of 2001, another individual who would eventually be convicted of charges related to funding terrorism – Sami al-Arian – met with Karl Rove at the White House as part of a 160-member delegation from the American Muslim Council, a group founded by... you guessed it, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was also present. This was after Alamoudi pledged support for Hamas and Hezbollah outside the White House one year earlier. 'Mike McQueary' moment?
The Washington Post reported about the multiple warning signs available to the Bush administration prior to AMC's visit. Vice President Dick Cheney was scheduled to speak to the AMC but backed out after a Jerusalem Post article identified AMC as a supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah; this demonstrates that the administration was not nearly as ignorant about who it had chosen to associate with. 'Mike McQueary' moment?
If none of those things served as 'Mike McQueary' moments, the violent penetration of America on September 11, 2001 did. One can imagine that the look on McQueary's face when he saw Sandusky with a young boy in that locker room shower wasn't much different than this:
Had the proper course been taken at Penn State, McQueary would have gone straight to police and Sandusky would have been summarily jettisoned from the University in handcuffs in 2001. There was a problem, however. An investigation conducted by Former FBI Director, Louis Freeh determined that Curley and Schultz became aware of Sandusky's penchant for young boys as early as 1998, when the mother of an 11-year old boy reported that an assault on her son had taken place in the shower. No charges were filed. In 2011, as the scandal was reaching critical mass, Schultz denied knowledge of the 1998 incident in an email he wrote in 2011.
Did knowledge of the 1998 incident contribute to the covering up of the 2001 incident? Dealing with Sandusky properly in 2001 would have involved very uncomfortable questions about the 1998 incident. As we now know, failure to deal with the 2001 incident properly involved a great deal more than uncomortable questions; Schultz lied about his knowledge of the 1998 incident. Does he wish he would have done in 1998 what he was unable to do in 2011, when such a decision was whisked from his control?
Six days after 9/11, George W. Bush stood with CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad inside a mosque and spoke of Islam in very peaceful terms. On September 26, 2001 Bush welcomed individuals with distinct Muslim Brotherhood ties into the White House. Among them was AMC president Yahya Basha, Salam Al-Marayati of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and Muzammil Siddiqi, then president of the Brotherhood's Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).
When Rove was confronted after the meeting about the decision to welcome such individuals into the White House, he allegedly said, “I wish I had known before the event took place.”
That statement is as believable as Schultz's contention that he didn't know about the 1998 incident when he denied knowledge of it in 2011.
On October 12, 2001 George W. Bush did something Paterno, Schultz, Curley, and Penn State president Graham Spanier did a few months earlier; he identified a responsible party. One such party was the Rabita Trust, an entity that, even according to the United Nations, was involved in the “financing, planning, facilitating” activities of “Al-Qaida”. Like Sandusky, the man who founded Rabita – Abdullah Omar Nasseef – has essentially escaped accountability. As the one time Secretary General for the Muslim World League, Nasseef led a group that is heavily financed by the Saudi government.
In February of 2002, Anwar al-Awlaki was allowed to penetrate the Department of Defense as an honored guest at a plush luncheon. CAIR Executive Director was one of the invitees. Later that year, al-Awlaki was detained at JFK airport after landing. Despite there being a warrant for his arrest, al-Awlaki was released. He eventually traveled to Yemen, where he inspired Fort Hood Jihadist, Nidal Malik Hassan, who would go on to murder 14 at the Texas Army post.
Interestingly, none other than Abdurahman Alamoudi helped to lay the groundwork for the increased presence of Muslim chaplains in the U.S. Military when he founded the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council (AMAFVAC) in 1991.
Jerry Sandusky founded The Second Mile and was able to penetrate young boys for years. One of the reasons he was able to do so was because those charged with stopping him chose instead, to implicate themselves by covering up his crimes. The Muslim Brotherhood continues to penetrate the U.S. Government for similar reasons.
The consequences for those who chose to cover up for Sandusky will be far less than those who have chosen to cover up the truth about the penetration of America by her enemies. The bad news is that there will be far more victims.
In any case, those in the Republican establishment who choose to close their eyes, ears, and mouths can be expected to utter words similar to those uttered by Joe Paterno when he finally realized it would have been much better had he come clean in 2001 than face a day of reckoning years later:
“It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more.”
It would seem, however, that the Republican Party establishment has had quite a few more 'Mike McQueary' moments than Penn State did.
After publishing this post yesterday, which included a photo circa 2000 that shows Abdurahman Alamoudi meeting with George W. Bush and Karl Rove, I decided to look into the book that Rove was quite likely given by the delegation seen in the photo. It's entitled, The Cultural Atlas of Islam and was written by a man named Ismail Al Faruqi in 1986.
Now, obviously, Karl Rove cannot be held accountable for accepting a book from a group he met with; it happens all the time. In fact, in 2009, Barack Obama accepted a far left-wing book from Hugo Chavez. That made news because Chavez wanted to make a public spectacle of himself.
However, there were red flags raised by the Secret Service and Intelligence officials relative to both Alamoudi and Sami Al-Arian. Yet, Bush and/or Rove met with them on more than one occasion after this book was put into Rove's hands. If there were suspicions about Alamoudi prior to these meetings, wouldn't it have been prudent to investigate the author of material this group felt was important enough to put into Rove's hands?
...Alamoudi and the AMC had been previously criticized for their ties to Hamas and other militant groups and figures (see March 13, 1996). Bush and/or Rove will meet with Alamoudi on other occasions (see (see July 2000, June 22, 2001, September 14-26, 2001). US intelligence learned of ties between Alamoudi and bin Laden in 1994 (see Shortly After March 1994);
Yes, Alamoudi visited the White House after 9/11. As it turns out, Al Faruqi is identified as the founder of one of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial (HLF). That group is the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS). Here is what Discover the Networks says about AMSS:
Established in 1972 by Temple University professor Ismail Raji al-Faruqi and University of Pennsylvania graduate student Abdulhamid AbuSulayman, the Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS) is a constituent organization of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and a sister organization of the International Institute of Islamic Thought.
AMSS describes itself as “an independent membership-based organization that encompasses the United States and Canada.” It has no corporate, legal or financial relationship with any organization bearing the name of AMSS in any other country. Its mission is “to provide a forum through which Islamic positions on various academic disciplines can be promoted, with an emphasis on the social sciences and humanities”; to further “the continuity of the Islamic intellectual heritage”; and “to serve the interests of the larger Muslim community by bringing together Muslim and non-Muslim scholars in an academic setting to examine and define Islamic perspectives on issues of global concern that contribute to the prosperity of Muslims around the globe and the betterment of humanity.”
AMSS collaborates with the International Institute of Islamic Thought to publish the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences (AJISS), which is distributed in more than 50 countries around the world. Launched in 1984, AJISS is an interdisciplinary publication of scholarly research on all facets of Islam and the Muslim world: politics, history, economic philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, religious law, and Islamic thought.
So, the author of the book given to Rove in 2000 was closely affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that has pledged to work toward the destruction of the United States. The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), another unindicted co-conspirator in HLF also lists al-Faruqi as its founder.
Are we to believe that the Bush administration did not know of the nefarious intentions of these individuals and groups?
Take a look at an article written by Franklin Foer on November 12, 2001 that was published by The New Republic:
On the afternoon of September 26, George W. Bush gathered 15 prominent Muslim- and Arab-Americans at the White House. With cameras rolling, the president proclaimed that "the teachings of Islam are teachings of peace and good." It was a critically important moment, a statement to the world that America's Muslim leaders unambiguously reject the terror committed in Islam's name.
To the president's left sat Dr. Yahya Basha, president of the American Muslim Council, an organization whose leaders have repeatedly called Hamas "freedom fighters." Also in attendance was Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, who on the afternoon of September 11 told a Los Angeles public radio audience that "we should put the State of Israel on the suspect list." And sitting right next to President Bush was Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Islamic Society of North America, who last fall told a Washington crowd chanting pro-Hezbollah slogans, "America has to learn if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come." Days later, after a conservative activist confronted Karl Rove with dossiers about some of Bush's new friends, Rove replied, according to the activist, "I wish I had known before the event took place."
Again, it's time for the highest members of the Bush administration - including Karl Rove - to come clean about who they met with, what they knew about them, and why they continued meeting with them after they knew it.
The stakes are too high and the jig is very close to being up.
We already know that the left in general and the Obama administration in particular can't stand Sarah Palin but what about the members of the administration and family that gave us Obama in the first place? If you ask any Tea Partier their take on George W. Bush, odds are that you'll get a concession that the out of control government spending started with his administration. The legacy of Bush 43 is not aging very well with most Americans. His aversion to enforcing immigration laws and veto pens when it came to spending bills only soured folks who now make up the Tea Party. That's why when I see someone like Karl Rove go after Sarah Palin, it should be perceived as a feather in her cap and a reason to support her if she gets in.
Team Bush does not like this woman and that's almost reason enough to vote for her. We've got to overturn the establishment culture in Washington and if there is anyone with a record of not only standing up to but defeating the establishment, it's Sarah Palin. Besides, any candidate - assuming that Palin will get in - that is despised by the members of both of the last two administrations may just be the right person for the job.
Here is Karl Rove on Greta revealing his unmasked disdain for Palin by calling her 'Thin-skinned' multiple times. I'm sorry, but no political figure or candidate has been more skewered by the mainstream media than Sarah Palin. In my view, Palin is anything but thin-skinned. On the contrary, there appears a bit of 'thou doth protest too much' from Rove here.
While we're at it, remember this from November of 2010? George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara were interviewed by Larry King. Bush, the elder, admitted to being confused about the Tea Party and Barbara said she hoped Palin would stay in Alaska.
To say that Karl Rove's appearance on CBS' Face the Nation was a case of guest dressing down host and paddling him for eight minutes comes as close to not being a metaphor as you can get. In fact, the only thing Karl Rove didn't say that he should have was, 'Is that the best you can do, Bob?' Try as he might, Schieffer could not get around the blatant hypocrisy when he attempted to call Rove on the matter of unnamed contributors. Rove continued to bring it back to the lack of outrage when the left does it.
Instead of acknowledging the point, Schieffer kept wanting to go back to 'the original question.' I didn't think there was anything left of the mask on the liberal media but Schieffer pulled off another layer with this blatantly biased line of questioning.
Rove almost - note, I said 'almost' - redeems himself for the treatment he gave Christine O'Donnell.
The best quote in this exchange between Malkin and Hannity comes at the end, when Malkin delivers the money line; it had to do with the choice between 'progressive wolves in elephants' clothing' and true conservatives. If there was a mild disappointment, it came from Hannity, who seemed to interrupt Malkin in the middle of her ripping Rove in an apparent attempt to get her to re-direct her anger toward Mike Castle. Malkin seemed to get the hint and do so. It was likely that Hannity didn't want to disparage a Fox News contributor he has a good relationship with so it's understandable.
That said, I would have liked it better if he let Michelle go. If you'd like to view more on what started the feud between Karl Rove and Tea Party conservatives, CLICK HERE.
On one hand, I feel the same anger Rove is expressing. On the other hand, I have been waiting for quite some time to see this kind of passion from members of the political establishment. If this clip is any indication of what we can expect in 2010, perhaps "above the fray" discourse will reach its end, to which I say GOOD RIDDANCE.
It is NO LONGER OK to disagree without being disagreeable. It's time to start seeing this level of passion and anger on a much more regular basis. The Founding Fathers had plenty of knock-down-drag-out fights and it spawned the greatest nation in history.
I also am impressed with Greta lately. Long gone are the days when she spent an hour on Anna Nicole-Smith type sagas and I genuinely look forward to her show these days.
The passion is obvious. Rove is not simply making a point. He's unhappy as he does it. To be fair, as a Fox News contributor, Rove is also defending an employer but he's also right. After watching this short clip of the exchange between he and Terry McAuliffe, I was curious about McAuliffe's responses so I checked out the entire segment.
No need to do so. McAuliffe's points were very lame and his spin was very weak but it didn't stop him from trying. He knew he was on the wrong side of the debate but had to defend the White House stance on Fox News.
Nonetheless, if you're a glutton for the punishment of watching McAuliffe defend a completely untenable position, have at it.
At Obama's joint session speech on September 9th, he said that Obamacare will not add on dime to the deficit. In an interview with CBS' Steve Kroft, he said that the only way to get federal spending "under control" is to reform health care.
These things are so absurd that Karl Rove felt compelled to violate decorum while on O'Reilly last night. When asked by O'Reilly if he thinks Obama truly believes his own rhetoric or is deliberately misleading the American public, Robe chose the latter.
In response to Rove's statement, O'Reilly hit a High "C" note.
