Ed Gillespie may replace Dan Bartlett.
By on Jun 3rd, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Ed Gillespie may replace Dan Bartlett.
Former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie “has emerged as a potential replacement to Dan Bartlett as counselor to President Bush. … After taking the reins of the national party in 2003, Gillespie was part of the Bush-Cheney inner circle in the 2004 campaign. He also served a key role for the White House in shepherding Supreme Court justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts through the Senate confirmation process after Bush’s reelection.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bailout
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Earmarks
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Politics
Race
Radical Right
RNC Convention
Rove
Terrorism
Third Bush Term
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
Spelling? Hello?
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 pmHowdy Douchebag Gillespie?
Wonderful, another accomplished liar.
-GSD
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:41 pmThis would be so typical of Bush — hire lobbyist, who is also a political strategist — rather than someone who actually is practicing law.
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 pmHowdy Douchebag Gillespie?
Wonderful, another accomplished liar.
-GSD
And this is somehow a surprise to you, after 6 years of this endless rancid nonsense?
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 pmGillespie as RNC chair even played a role in getting CBS to torpedo “The Reagans.”
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 pmLOL Gillespie is a complete and total GOPer stooge. One of the dumbest jerks to ever have led the Republican National Committee.
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 pmgreat… another political hack… good lord… they’re going to run this country totally into the ground…
And, yes, I DO take it personally
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 pmLOL Gillespie is a complete and total GOPer stooge. One of the dumbest jerks to ever have led the Republican National Committee.
Comment by Jay Randal
But does he know how to plea bargain?
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 pmDavid Abshire was “Counselor” to President Reagan and not even a lawyer. GO GILLESPIE!!!
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 pmi always got the two of them confused, anyway…
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 pmI don’t see this happening. Now that Gillespie has been “outed”, every time W meets with him, there will be an “ick factor” that he won’t want to be around. For that reason, even if Ed gets the job, he won’t have it for long.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 pm.
OT but there is no debate thread yet. Hillary was doing her best Bush Lite impression.
“They went quietly to the floor of the Senate, cast the right vote. But there is a difference between leadership and legislating,” Edwards told his rivals during the second Democratic debate.
Both Clinton and Obama voted against the bill — which passed — but without making a strong case against the legislation.
“I think it’s obvious who I’m talking about,” Edwards said.
Clinton disagreed with Edwards, both in his comments on her role on Iraq and in his characterization of Bush’s global war on terrorism as a “political slogan, a bumper sticker.”
As a New Yorker, “I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists,” Clinton said.
Still, she said, “I believe we are safer than we were.”
http://tinyurl.com/2k8rct
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:09 pmI believe we are safer than we were too.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:13 pmYou would Jake. Thinking isn’t your strong suit. By the way, did you erase me from your Buscemi list?
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 pmI believe we are safer than we were too.
Comment by Jake
With all the new breakthroughs in modern medicine, even you can now be helped.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:17 pmI know that we’re not supposed to engage the trolls here, but “go Gillespie”? The key to effective contrarianism is to present a compelling dissent. Wouldn’t one have at least a marginal interest in credibility preservation in order to advance their argument? Comments like these are sophomoric beyond comprehension. Why cheerlead for Gillespie? Because he’s a tool accustomed to swallowing what he’s fed? There is nothing patriotic about complacency.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 pmLOL — I guess the junior Senator from New York needs help with her thinking as well??
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:18 pmFor the record, someone above mocked Gillespie because he doesn’t practice law. I pointed out that very distinguished “Counselors” to previous Presidents sometimes are NOT lawyers (to their credit).
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 pmYou are a big Hillary fan, are you Jake? Karl is not going to be happy with your performance.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 pmLOL — I guess the junior Senator from New York needs help with her thinking as well??
Comment by Jake
Yup… you can join Hillary in group any time you want, Jake.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 pmWould he be the “consigliare”??
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:23 pmWould he be the “consigliare�?
Comment by RUCerious
Technically speaking, yes.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 pmGillespie is an empty-headed mouthpiece. He is perfect to coordinate the WH spin ops…er, do whatever Rove tells him to.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 pmIn that case, hide your horses, or one of their heads may be lying beside you when you wake up tomorrow!
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 pm“Would he be the “consigliareâ€??”
No, you would think it was a position somehow connected with the legal position but it is nothing but the WH spin doctor.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 pmKaren Hughes was the previous Counselor to the President. She, also, was not a lawyer.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 pmi always got the two of them confused, anyway…
Comment by katy — June 3, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
That’s ’cause neither of them have chins.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:33 pmDavid Gergen was Counselor to President Clinton — Harvard law school, I believe.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:34 pmJPark, would he be advising the president on making offers one wouldn’t refuse?
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:36 pmRuotare dottore?
Who cares? A Bush cultist replaces another… It won’t save the GOP from a serious trouncing in 2008.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:36 pmI totally disagree with Hillary when she says that we’re safer now than we were. NYC first responders still don’t have radio interoperability. Just one simple thing, and they don’t even have that after 5 years, even if you don’t count the first WTC bombing in 1993. Also not to mention that our continued presence in Iraq just fuels hatred and makes more enemies.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:40 pmGet his email accounts…they will lead back to KKKarl Rove.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 pmThomas F. (Mack) McLarty was another Counselor to the President — not a lawyer.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 pmTypical W, when the time comes for a new appointment, you start at the bottom of the barrel. Oops, He missed Jake!
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 pmGet his email accounts…they will lead back to KKKarl Rove.
Comment by kasinca
I’m sorry, but those accounts are now sleeping w/ the fishes.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 pmUnqualified political hacks R’US at the Whitewash House.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 pmKaren Hughes was the previous Counselor to the President. She, also, was not a lawyer. Comment by Jake
It doesn’t take a law degree to become a sychophant.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 pmBartlett and Griffin both are resigning just before the investigation of voter caging gets hot. See http://www.gregpalast.com
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:49 pmRobert Finch, Counselor under Nixon: lawyer.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:50 pmIt doesn’t take a law degree to become a sychophant.
Comment by O’Really
No, but you do have to lack a soul.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 pmkasinca:
If someone is not legally registered to vote, do you think they should be allowed to vote anyways?
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:52 pmAnother Counselor to the President (Nixon) Melvin R. Laird: not a lawyer.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 pmRobert Finch, Counselor under Nixon: lawyer.
Comment by Jake
So, uh, Jake, trying to prove to one and all that you know how to use the Internets and the Google?
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:56 pmCounselor to the President (Clinton) Paul Begala: lawyer.
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 pmMust we feed Jake psychotic need for attention?
This is me talking, so you know it’s bad…..
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 pmAnother Counselor to the President (Nixon) Melvin R. Laird: not a lawyer. Comment by Jake
Now thats an example you may not want to mention. =)
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 pm#39, #42 - Jake,
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 pmWhat does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Counselor to the President (Clinton) Doug Sosnik: not a lawyer.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:00 am#44 - Jake,
June 4th, 2007 at 12:01 amSame question.
Had enough, retrogrouch?
June 4th, 2007 at 12:01 amGillespie does not know where all the bodies are buried and he was not involved in scrubbing Dubya’s history (NG and DUI) like Karen Hughes and Dan Bartlett…his claim to fame is more of the Abramoff class. He is mentioned in that deal.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:02 ami always got the two of them confused, anyway…
Comment by katy — June 3, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
That’s ’cause neither of them have chins.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — June 3, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
heh… … that too…
i just see spin master eager beaver cheerleader types…
too damn happy also… pisses me off… lyin’ s.o.b.’s…
say g’nite, all…
June 4th, 2007 at 12:03 amg’nite all…
Hey, kasinca, I’ll try one more time:
If someone is not legally registered to vote, do you think they should be allowed to vote anyways?
June 4th, 2007 at 12:04 amIf Jake wasn’t such an annoying dumbass he could be counselor to the president. After all, he’s not an attorney either.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:06 amFor the record, here is what Marie posted @ 10:53 pm
“This would be so typical of Bush — hire lobbyist, who is also a political strategist — rather than someone who actually is practicing law.”
I could keep going with more Counselor(s) to the President who were not practicing law . . .
June 4th, 2007 at 12:06 amHad enough, retrogrouch?
Comment by Jake
I’m sure they are on the floor writhing in the unbreathable choking pain of uncontrolled laughter.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:07 amIt doesn’t take a law degree to become a sychophant.
Comment by O’Really
No, but you do have to lack a soul.
Comment by the republic of stupidity — June 3, 2007 @ 11:51 pm
Jake is a sychophant AND he lacks soul. Too bad nobody could stand to spend five minutes in his presence since he has the lack of qualifications to be counselor to idiot Bush.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:08 amallowed to vote anywayS?
Comment by Jake — June 3, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
there’s the TELL that let’s me know this trooll
is a 20-something jerk…
it’s just bad grammar, and all the genX&Yers do it…
June 4th, 2007 at 12:09 ami have to correct my daughter all the time…
annoying…
no offense, it just is… drop the S…
…
If Jake wasn’t such an annoying dumbass he could be counselor to the president. After all, he’s not an attorney either.
Comment by shane
Ah, there’s that deadly sharp sarcastic wit!! :)
June 4th, 2007 at 12:10 amJake,
There are requirements to be a registered voter. If you do not qualifiy, you are turned away. I have worked in the polls and that is exactly the way it works. If someone comes in who is not on the roll, they are not allowed to vote. Why do you ask dumb questions? Did you take civics? Did Rush Limpbone lie to you and tell that they are allowed to vote? Get a life. Why would a stupid reichwing, knuckle dragging, troll stay on a progressive board all day, everyday? To look stupid or to get paid by the RNC? Get a life.
Caging of voters is a crime. Trying to vote without being on the rolls is nothing…you get turned away. Having Diebold steal elections in specific precincts is also a crime. Individual voters screwing up, suchas, mAnn Coulter, could be a crime but most likely doesn’t throw an election.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:10 amAh, there’s that deadly sharp sarcastic wit!! :)
Comment by Mistress Z — June 4, 2007 @ 12:10 am
Evening Mistress Z. Gee and I was trying to be gentle with the allegedly old fart.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:13 amIf someone is not legally registered to vote, do you think they should be allowed to vote anyways?
Comment by Jake
Why should I have to register to vote? My birth certficate certainly qualifies me as an American Citizen as does my Social Security card. This is but just more cost and red tape and poodle hoops for folks to jump thru for no good reason.
If they are not legal citizens then they should not be allowed to vote nor to sway our government thru lobbyist efforts.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:13 amWhy would a stupid reichwing, knuckle dragging, troll stay on a progressive board all day, everyday? To look stupid or to get paid by the RNC? Get a life.
Comment by kasinca
Ouch, kasinca, why… why… that’s mean, and nasty, and totally appropriate. Kinda like a good swift one right in Jake’s coj*#nes, that is, if Jake has ‘em, which appears to be open for debate.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:16 amJake,
June 4th, 2007 at 12:19 amThere are conditional ballots. If at polling time you are accused of being not legally registered (by Kathleen Harris) you can file a provisional ballot and let the appeals process take over. There were about 8000 ballots so contested in the 2000 election, just in Jacksonville, FL. They were all disqualified by 5 “justices†of the Supreme Court.
O.K., so one vote FOR voter registration, one vote AGAINST voter registration. Anyone else?
June 4th, 2007 at 12:20 amJake,
June 4th, 2007 at 12:23 amOne word - Caging.
Evening Mistress Z. Gee and I was trying to be gentle with the allegedly old fart.
Comment by shane
Evening, Mizz Shane. Don’t be going easy on the old boy, today’s been one of his more stupid days on TP.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:24 amAnd one clueless jacka$$ troll.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:24 amO.K., so one vote FOR voter registration, one vote AGAINST voter registration. Anyone else? Comment by Jake
What does this have to do with the thread at hand?
Obviously Bartlett and many other neo-cons have seen the writing on the wall and have decided the salty ocean is a safer bet than the rotting wooden hulk they once occupied.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:25 amYa know Jake, I also have a passport, and went thru those hurdles to prove my citizenship. With todays technology I see registration as overkill and costly to business.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:27 amIf a troll posits a blatant strawman argument, does anyone have to reply?
June 4th, 2007 at 12:28 amO’Really:
Someone else brought up “caging” not me.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:29 amIf a troll posits a blatant strawman argument, does anyone have to reply?
Comment by RUCerious
NO!!
June 4th, 2007 at 12:31 amBack on-topic though, someone complained that Gillespie doesn’t practice law, so here are some more . . .
Counselor to the President (Nixon) Moynihan, Daniel P.: not a lawyer.
Counselor to the President (Nixon) Rumsfeld, Donald: not a lawyer.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:32 amIf Jake wasn’t such an annoying dumbass he could be counselor to the president. After all, he’s not an attorney either.
Comment by shane — June 4, 2007 @ 12:06 am
Shane, I don’t think being an annoying dumbass is a disqualification for ANY administration post under Dubya. Including POTUS. On the contrary, it actually seems to be viewed as a positive.
So I’m not sure WHY Jake isn’t counselor to the president. He sure could be. Not a lawyer? Check. Right-wing goose-stepper? Check. Willing to say inane and irrelevant things just to distract from real stories? Check. He’s got it all.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:32 amO’Really: Someone else brought up “caging†not me.
Comment by Jake
Fair enough. =)
June 4th, 2007 at 12:34 amWe need to chase Hillary out of her unearned Senate seat not consider her for resident.
The 58 Bush Democrats need to be challenged in the 2008 primaries by credible anti-war candidates.
Even if we don’t actually beat the Bush Democrats, we have a reasonable chance of switching their votes to avoid losing a primary. Ned Lamont proved an anti-war challenger can beat a pro-war incumbent in a Democratic primary, and primaries by Marcy Winograd (CA-36) and Donna Edwards (MD-4) scared incumbents Jane Harman and Al Wynn into opposing the Occupation.
I first proposed this strategy on 5/24 and asked for nominations. On 5/31 I reported 23 nominations for 15 of the 58 seats.
Nominations are still open :)
June 4th, 2007 at 12:34 amAnd just in case, Jake, you do not know what ‘caging’ means, it is a technique used by the Republic party to disenfranchise our armed service people who are overseas, particularly those of color. KKKarl Rove was the architect of this ruse. O’Really never mentioned it.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:38 amJake,
I brought up caging….because that seems to be one reason that Bartlett and Timmy Griffin both resigned…right after Greg Palast turned over 500 emails to John Conyers concerning caging (a go to jail type of crime). It was brought up by Goodling and I am sure KKKarl Rove is squirming in his pants, along with Gonzo…although I am sure Gonzo can’t remember, remembering the crime.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:38 amAgain, someone complained that Gillespie doesn’t practice law, so here’s another one . . .
Counselor to the President (Nixon) Burns, Arthur F.: not a lawyer.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:39 amJakey hates our black servicemembers. Not quite up to his patriotic standards.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:44 amOnce again the question to me is not who replaces Bartlett but why he decided to heave-ho over the ships rails into the foamy abyss?
Again, someone complained that Gillespie doesn’t practice law, so here’s another one . .-Jake
That someones opinion is not my opinion. =)
Put the water color set down and step away from it. Place your hands behind your head and get on your knees. NOW.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:46 amEd Gillespie is not an attorney? He may be…but the real issue is that he will need one.
http://www.dccc.org/gopauctionhouse/main.html
He is waist deep in the Abramoff scandal.
Fear, Smear, crooks, liars, and cowards of the GOP…they are so over.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:48 amCounselor to the President (Carter) Cruikshank, Nelson: not a lawyer.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:49 amJake,
June 4th, 2007 at 12:50 amYou forget - Gonzolez, Alfredo - Soon to be disbared by the Texas Bar Association.
For the record, I doubt Gonzales will be disbarred before January 20, 2009 (Attorney General John Mitchell was not disbarred until AFTER his conviction).
June 4th, 2007 at 12:54 amCounselor to the President (Clinton) John Podesta: not a lawyer.
June 4th, 2007 at 12:56 amCounselor to Nobody: Jake, not muchof anything.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:04 amSorry, but cross Podesta off the list — he’s a g-d lawyer too.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:06 amCounselor to the President (Nixon) Harlow, Bryce N.: not a lawyer.
Counselor to the President (Nixon) Armstrong, Anne : not a lawyer.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:11 amFor the record, I doubt Gonzales will be disbarred before January 20, 2009 (Attorney General John Mitchell was not disbarred until AFTER his conviction).
Comment by Jake
For the record, I’ve saved Jake’s crow in the virtual freezer. It’ll be waiting for him, should he be foolish enough to still be here in Jan ‘09.
A future bon appetit,’ to you, Jacques.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:17 am“Counselor to the President (Nixon) Moynihan, Daniel P.: not a lawyer.
Comment by Jake
On Daniel Moynihan: He went on to graduate from Tufts University, and received three graduate degrees from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
For the record, Jake’s full of sh*t, again; someone should give him a healthy dose of Dulcolax.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:25 amsomeone complained that Gillespie doesn’t practice law, so here’s another one . .-Jake
No, the thrust of their complaint was that Gillespie is a LOBBYIST.
June 4th, 2007 at 1:30 amThough it’s all relative,it’s also immutable. All personalities transmogrify into alternative personas when confronted with exposure of true identity.
June 4th, 2007 at 2:19 amTo truly appreciate the differing modalities of alternative personalities,one has to, at the very least to comprehend the seriousness of the topic at hand. If not, that self same person is responsible for their own baffoonery.
#88 r.o.s. - ha!! - like it - first of all,look, i don’t know who this jake is - i’ve only started checking this website over the last few days but he really gets slapped around in every thread i’ve read!! - secondly,what does a counselor to the president actually do?
June 4th, 2007 at 4:26 amI wouldn’t take the job. The RNC will go down in history as a criminal organization.
June 4th, 2007 at 6:28 amJake is a compulsive troll, Darth. We’re just helping him work through his problem.
June 4th, 2007 at 6:29 am“secondly,what does a counselor to the president actually do?”
Comment by darth vader
In the case of this pResident, I think it may be to provide daycare.
June 4th, 2007 at 8:31 amGillespie is a great liar. Real fast on his toes. He’d do a great job!
June 4th, 2007 at 10:09 amI want to be # 100
Thanks.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am# 97 & 98 thank you for the clarification on both points - may the force be with you both
June 4th, 2007 at 6:17 pmI want to be # 102
Thanks.
June 5th, 2007 at 1:49 am