Rove: Obama ‘Has Carried Pre-Packaged, Organized, Controlled, Scripted Events To A New Height’
Rove: Obama ‘Has Carried Pre-Packaged, Organized, Controlled, Scripted Events To A New Height’
Former Bush adviser Karl Rove went on Fox News this morning and attacked President Obama’s health care town hall meeting yesterday as “pre-packaged, organized, controlled, [and] scripted,” adding that the Bush administration would never have done something so audacious:
ROVE: This White House has carried pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted events to a new height, and they’re getting away with things that in any previous White House, the media would have eviscerated the press secretary and the White House for it.
Watch it:
ThinkProgress contacted a White House spokesperson who said that at yesterday’s health care town hall event in Virginia, half of the tickets were given out by the school (to “students, faculty, staff, as well as members of the health community from the area”) and the other half by the White House (”grassroots activists and people involved in the issue in the area”). The spokesperson then explained how questions were chosen:
The President posted a video on YouTube several days ago, saying respond to this video with questions for me on health care, and we got hundreds, and all of those are online. So in terms of the videos that were selected, anyone can look at the range and see which ones we did and didn’t select. That’s fully transparent. They’re all up on YouTube; they were all up yesterday on our website.
Because YouTube doesn’t actually have a voting function, our new media staff took videos that were rated highly by other users and selected, from among those, questions that represented the range of things being asked. So a lot of people in the progressive community still want a single-payer system, so the first question was from a single-payer advocate. We took a question from a Republican member of Congress, Mike Burgess, about medical malpractice reform.
The spokesperson then noted that there were also questions taken from people who were following along on Twitter and Facebook. When asked whether these questioners or audience members were pre-screened for their political ideology or whether they agreed with the President, the spokesperson replied, “Absolutely not.”
Of course, pre-screening for political ideology is exactly what the Bush administration did.
In March 2005, people seeking tickets to a Social Security event were quizzed about their support of President Bush and his Social Security plan ahead of time. In April 2005, Bush’s security detail threw out three people from an event in Colorado because they had a bumper sticker reading “No More Blood For Oil.” White House spokesman Trent Duffy said that if there’s any evidence people might “disrupt the president,” they “have the right to exclude those people from those events.”
Bush even screened the assembled group of soldiers he would meet in Iraq during a 2003 Thanksgiving visit: Soldiers had to fill out a questionnaire asking whether they supported Bush.
Transcript: More »
- Comments
- 89
Rove twitters: Obama officials are ‘ingrates.’
Rove twitters: Obama officials are ‘ingrates.’
Earlier today, former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove expressed his irrational irritation with the Obama White House on his Twitter page, writing the “Ingrates speak,” before linking to a post by Commentary Magazine’s Jennifer Rubin:
The post Rove linked to asks whether White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gives “credit to President Bush for the foresight and determination to see the surge through and deliver the results we saw this week.” The answer was “no.” Rubin then went on to lament the White House’s inability to “celebrate America’s accomplishments.”
Rove: I’m Horrified That A News Network Would Be A ‘Cooperating Partner’ Of The White House
Rove: I’m Horrified That A News Network Would Be A ‘Cooperating Partner’ Of The White House
On Wednesday, Fox News’ Sean Hannity brought on former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove to gripe about ABC’s upcoming “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” which will feature President Obama answering “questions offered by audience members ’selected by ABC News who have divergent opinions‘” on health care. Rove called it “unprecedented access to the White House and more importantly an unprecedented use of the White House.”
Last night, Rove was back on Fox News — this time with Greta Van Susteren — and argued that it was improper for ABC to get the access, considering that former ABC reporter Linda Douglass is now working in the White House:
ROVE: If it’s not crossing a line, it’s getting comfortably too close to a line of where a news network becomes a cooperating partner of and an adjacency to the White House communications shop. And I think the presence of a former ABC reporter as the communicator-in-chief inside the White House on this issue also raises questions about how it ended up in the hands of ABC.
Watch it:
It’s hard to take Rove’s outrage seriously. After all, Fox News’ Bret Baier received “unprecedented access” to the White House (as well as Air Force One and Bush’s ranch in Crawford, TX) in February 2008 for a “documentary” on President Bush. Baier said that the piece offered “a President Bush you’ve never seen before.”
In October 2007, Baier also hosted a special titled “Dick Cheney: No Retreat,” which was “a rare glimpse into the life of the vice president.” Of course, in the period leading up to Fox gaining such extraordinary access, who was the White House press secretary?
Tony Snow…who had previously worked for Fox News.
Transcript: More »
Hannity: Only Fox News Deserves ‘Unprecedented Access’ To The White House
Hannity: Only Fox News Deserves ‘Unprecedented Access’ To The White House
Last night on Fox News, Sean Hannity interviewed Karl Rove about ABC’s upcoming special “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” which will feature President Obama answering “questions offered by audience members ‘selected by ABC News who have divergent opinions in this historic debate’” on health care. Hannity and Rove — echoing a recent Washington Times piece — raised questions about what they called the “unprecedented access to the White House” granted to ABC for their “infomercial” on health care reform:
HANNITY: Karl, it seems rather unprecedented. You were there in the White House for the better part of eight years. Did this ever happened while George W. Bush was president?
ROVE: You know, look, it’s normal for the networks to want to come in and do an interview inside the White House or to get a glimpse behind the curtain as to what goes on there. This is an unprecedented access to the White House and more importantly an unprecedented use of the White House. I can’t remember a time when the network came in and was going to devote a significant block of time to covering an issue that was on the president’s agenda.
As Media Matters first noted, when Fox News’ Bret Baier was granted “unprecedented access” to the White House in Feb. 2008, the network billed it as a “documentary,” not an “infomercial.” Further, Fox was not only welcomed into the White House, but aboard Air Force One, to Bush’s ranch in Texas, and into the Oval Office. Baier introduced the “documentary” saying, “Fox News has been granted unprecedented access inside the President’s world. … It’s a President Bush you’ve never seen before.” Watch a compilation of Hannity last night and Baier’s special:
Prior to airing the Bush special, Baier hosted a special on the famously-reclusive vice president entitled “Dick Cheney: No Retreat.” Fox billed it as “a rare glimpse into the life of the vice president” and aired the program Oct. 13, 2007. Similarly, on Oct. 30, 2007, Fox’s Greta Van Susteren was granted what she called “unprecedented access” to First Lady Laura Bush’s tour of the Middle East.
In the period leading up to Fox gaining such access to the Bush White House, former Fox News Sunday host Tony Snow was serving as White House Press Secretary, leaving office just weeks before Baier’s first documentary aired.
Fact-Checking Republican Attacks Against The Public Option
Fact-Checking Republican Attacks Against The Public Option
Today during his speech in Green Bay, Wisconsin, President Obama reiterated his support for the public health option. “One of the options in the exchange should be a public insurance option — because if the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and help keep prices down,” Obama said.
Indeed, a new public health insurance plan could restore competition into the consolidated health insurance market, lower health care premiums, lead the way in innovation, and improve health quality.
Republicans have mischaractarized the public option is a “government takeover” of health care. In this morning’s Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove argued that “if Mr. Obama signs into law a ‘public option,’ government-run insurance program as part of health-care reform we won’t be able to undo the damage.”
Rove’s rhetoric echoes the poll-tested talking points of Frank Luntz and other conservatives determined to protect the private insurer’s monopoly over coverage and deny Americans choice. The Wonk Room has compiled a fact-check of common public plan myths:
MYTH 1: A public option is unnecessary: “It’s unnecessary. Advocates say a government-run insurance program is needed to provide competition for private health insurance. But 1,300 companies sell health insurance plans. That’s competition enough.” [WSJ, 6/11/2009]
TRUTH: Insurer and hospital markets are dominated by large insurers and provider systems. Private insurers rarely negotiate with dominant hospital systems and typically pass on the higher costs to beneficiaries in the form of higher premiums. Already, “1 in 6 metropolitan areas in a 2008 study of more than 300 U.S. markets is dominated by a single health insurer that controls at least 70% of consumers enrolled in health maintenance organizations or preferred provider organizations.” Such consolidation negates any real competition. Without it, insurers don’t negotiate prices and boost their profits. In fact, “there have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years,” and premiums have risen “nearly eight times faster than average U.S. incomes.” A public plan could, in an environment of head-to-head competition, push private insurance companies to negotiate more aggressively with providers and dramatically lower health care spending.” [Urban Institute, 10/03/2008; LA Times, 4/09/2009]
Read the full list or download a PDF version.
Rove: Bush Administration Has ‘No’ Responsibility For Current Budget Deficits
Rove: Bush Administration Has ‘No’ Responsibility For Current Budget Deficits
Last night on Fox News, former top Bush adviser Karl Rove chastised President Obama for his economic recovery package Congress passed last February and criticized him for his new proposal to enact “pay as you go” budgeting rules — paying for spending increases by either raising taxes or budget cuts.
“This is a cosmetic gesture. This guy is going to run up a $1.8 trillion deficit. That’s what it’s projected to be this year,” Rove complained. But when host Greta Van Susteren asked if the Bush administration is responsible for any of the deficit, Rove replied, “No.”:
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you take some responsibility, meaning you, the Bush eight years, for this…
ROVE: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: You take absolutely no responsibility? Because…
ROVE: No.
Watch it:
Rove’s denial is odd, not only because the Bush administration turned President Clinton’s budget surplus into massive deficits and left with nearly half a trillion dollars in the hole, but also because Bush presided over the largest debt increase of any U.S. president in history. But the timing of Rove’s denial is odd as well because the New York Times published yesterday the results of an examination of Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade which found that Obama “is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits” and most of his adminstration’s contribution to the deficit is a result of continuing Bush policies:
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
“In other words,” Matt Yglesias writes, “the very high deficits are not Obama’s fault according to any normal way of assessing political blame.” See Yglesias’s pie chart illustrating the Times’s story here.
Rove: ‘Who Cares’ Whether Muslims ‘Approve Or Like The President Of The United States’?
Rove: ‘Who Cares’ Whether Muslims ‘Approve Or Like The President Of The United States’?
Last night, Karl Rove went on Fox News and lambasted President Obama’s speech in Cairo, saying that he would give him a grade of “D minus” on the “important parts of the speech.” Host Bill O’Reilly then decided to play “devil’s advocate” and pointed out that President Bush’s approach wasn’t all that great since Muslim communities around the world “hated him.” Rove responded that it doesn’t really matter what they think:
O’REILLY: Okay? The bottom line on it is that President Bush may have been right in a lot of the things that he said and did during the war on terror in his administration. But the Muslim world would not listen to him. They wouldn’t. They didn’t like him. They hated him. He was demonized. And they didn’t like him at all.
ROVE: No, I totally disagree with you.
O’REILLY: The Muslim world –
ROVE: Totally disagree with you.
O’REILLY: — the Muslim people. They didn’t like him.
ROVE: Well, no, no. Look, I disagree with you.
O’REILLY: Well, all the polls showed in every Muslim country that President Bush’s approval rating was 20 percent. So I mean how can you disagree?
ROVE: You know what? Who cares about whether or not they approve or like the president of the United States? The question is do they respect the policies of the United States government? And you bet they did. Because we showed strength and power and influence.
Watch it:
Not only did many Muslim countries not “like” President Bush, they also didn’t respect his policies. A 2006 poll of five Muslim nations found that just 8-16 percent of those surveyed believed that “the ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein made the world a safer place.”
In fact, the reason that so many Muslim communities didn’t approve of Bush was because of his policies. The United States may have had “strength and power and influence,” but under the Bush administration, it used it to “weaken and divide the Islamic world,” according to a 2007 poll of four majority Muslim nations. The abuse of this power is what led to “widespread…unfavorable attitudes” of the United States by Muslim nations throughout Bush’s two terms.
Not that Rove ever cared what they thought anyway.
Transcript: More »
Rove says that Gingrich’s demand for Sotomayor to withdraw is ‘premature,’ calls for a ‘respectful’ debate.
Rove says that Gingrich’s demand for Sotomayor to withdraw is ‘premature,’ calls for a ‘respectful’ debate.
Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, Karl Rove said that it was “premature” for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to call for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor to withdraw from her name from consideration. He then called for Republicans to engage with her “respectfully”:
ROVE: So I think Republicans need to take her on in the appropriate fashion, which is about her judicial philosophy, her record on the court, her writings and her statements. Particularly her statements. But they — and they need to do so with respect. We don’t need to engage with the Democrats did with Alito and Roberts or famously Bork with Ted Kennedy’s Bork’s America speech. They need to do it respectfully. And it needs to be over philosophy. Because Americans of all backgrounds believe that judges ought to be impartial umpires.
Watch it:
Rove, however, has done far more than just “respectfully” criticize Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy and statements. He has said that she is ruled by “emotion,” called her “sort of a schoolmarm,” and questioned her intelligence. Yesterday, Rove also said that he “got wind of” allegations that Sotomayor “was combative, opinionated, argumentative” while reviewing the record of her “colleague on the court” Samuel Alito. However, as Media Matters pointed out, Sotomayor served on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals; Alito served on the 3rd Circuit.
Transcript: More »
Rove claims that Sotomayor’s judicial decisions are led by ‘emotion.’
Rove claims that Sotomayor’s judicial decisions are led by ‘emotion.’
Even before President Obama announced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, former Bush adviser Karl Rove began attacking her credentials. Since then, Rove has claimed that she’s “not necessarily” smart and has acted “like sort of a schoolmarm” on the 2nd court of appeals. Today, in his Wall Street Journal column, he implies that her judicial decisions are led by “emotion“:
“Empathy” is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn’t pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.
There is a certain irony in a president who routinely praises America’s commitment to “the rule of law” but who picks Supreme Court nominees for their readiness to discard the rule of law whenever emotion moves them.
Rove isn’t the first conservative to use the gender-loaded “emotion” attack against Sotomayor. In a blog post for the American Enterprise Institute, torture advocate John Yoo wrote that Republicans needed “to make sure that she will not be a results-oriented voter, voting her emotions and politics rather than the law.”
Rove likens Sotomayor to ‘sort of a schoolmarm.’
Rove likens Sotomayor to ‘sort of a schoolmarm.’
Karl Rove has made clear that he doesn’t think Sonia Sotomayor is smart enough to be a justice on the Supreme Court. Last night on Fox News, Rove offered another demeaning and subtly-sexist putdown of Sotomayor. Rove complained to Greta Van Sustern that Sotomayor pays too much attention to grammar and claimed that she’s “sort of a schoolmarm”:
ROVE: When I was talking to people about the 2nd court of appeals — for example, look, as you know, justices circulate opinions and — to their colleagues to get their feedback and to act as, you know, sort of a prompt for discussions when they meet in chambers. Well — in conference, excuse me.
What she would do is she would mark them up like she was your English school teacher and — with your typos and misspellings and other words that she wanted to have changed and send it back to her colleagues. Not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with your colleagues. Rather than say, “Oh, I thought you had an interesting legal argument here and I’d like to talk to you more about this here,” she was acting like sort of a schoolmarm.
Watch it:
“You make me nervous about the times I correct people for grammatical errors. I’m not going to do it anymore,” host Greta Van Susteren later told Rove. But Rove clarified, saying his criticism only applies for “equals.” “You should. But if they’re colleagues, if they’re equals, I mean, be very careful about getting out your red pen and marking it up like you’re their English teacher,” he said.
Rove: Attending top schools doesn’t mean that Sotomayor is smart, but it proves that Bush is.
Rove: Attending top schools doesn’t mean that Sotomayor is smart, but it proves that Bush is.
During a debate at Radio City Music Hall last night, former Bush adviser Karl Rove claimed that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor was “not necessarily” “very smart.” When host Charlie Rose noted in response that she attended Princeton and Yale Law School, Rove replied that you don’t have to be smart to attend a top school:
Rove - “She is competent and will be confirmed….She has an interesting and compelling life story…”
Charlie - “She is very smart.”
Rove “Not necessarily.”
Charlie - “What do you mean? She went to Princeton where she graduating with honors and then went on to Yale Law School….”
Rove- “I know lots of stupid people who went to Ivy League schools.” The crowd applauds.
Rove’s dismissal of Ivy League attendance is ironic considering that in an interview previewing the debate, he cited George W. Bush’s experience at Harvard and Yale to mock claims that Bush is stupid. “The myth was that this guy, who was a Yale history grad and a Harvard MBA, was not smart,” Rove told the Chicago Tribune. In December 2008, Rove also touted Bush’s time at Harvard and Yale in a Wall Street Journal column, writing, “You don’t make it through either unless you are a reader.”
Obama To Name Sonia Sotomayor As His Supreme Court Nominee
Obama To Name Sonia Sotomayor As His Supreme Court Nominee
This morning, President Obama is expected to name Sonia Sotomayor, currently a federal judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as his Supreme Court nominee. She is the first Hispanic nominee for the high court, and if chosen, would become just the third woman to serve. President George H.W. Bush nominated her for her previous post as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Born to parents who came from Puerto Rico, Sotomayor grew up in a Bronx housing project. In addition to her 16 years of court experience and her time as editor of the Yale Law Review, Sotomayor also “spent five years as a prosecutor with the Manhattan District Attorney, then developed her substantial civil practice as a commercial litigator.” However, during her “wrinkle-free confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee” in 1992, senators focused on her substantial pro bono activities:
For 12 years she was a top policy maker on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. She was also on the board of the State of New York Mortgage Agency, where she helped provide mortgage insurance coverage to low-income housing and AIDS hospices. In her leisure time she became a founding member of the New York City Campaign Finance Board, which distributes public money for city campaigns.
Last week, the well-respected SCOTUS Blog underscored the historic nature of a Sotomayor nomination and warned Republicans that it will be “hopeless” to try to block her nomination. Politically, such attacks risk “exacting a very significant political cost among Hispanics and independent voters generally.” A look at some of the likely conservative claims:
Opponents’ first claim — likely stated obliquely and only on background – will be that Judge Sotomayor is not smart enough for the job. This is a critical ground for the White House to capture. … The objective evidence is that Sotomayor is in fact extremely intelligent. Graduating at the top of the class at Princeton is a signal accomplishment. Her opinions are thorough, well-reasoned, and clearly written. Nothing suggests she isn’t the match of the other Justices. [...]
The second claim — and this one will be front and center — will be the classic resort to ideology: that Judge Sotomayor is a liberal ideologue and “judicial activist.” … There is no question that Sonia Sotomayor would be on the left of this Supreme Court, just not the radical left. Our surveys of her opinions put her in essentially the same ideological position as Justice Souter. [...]
The third claim – related to the second – will be that Judge Sotomayor is unprincipled or dismissive of positions with which she disagrees. … There just isn’t any remotely persuasive evidence that Judge Sotomayor acts lawlessly or anything of the sort.
This morning, Karl Rove was on Fox News getting started on the attacks, calling Sotomayor an “unabashed liberal.” Watch it:
I applaud the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways: the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court. While her record suggests excellent educational and professional qualifications, now it is up to the Senate to discharge its constitutional duty for a full and fair confirmation process.
Republicans look forward to learning more about federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor’s thoughts on the importance of the Supreme Court’s fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law. Supreme Court vacancies are rare, which makes Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination a perfect opportunity for America to have a thoughtful discussion about the role of the Supreme Court in our daily lives. Republicans will reserve judgment on Sonia Sotomayor until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views.
Liz Cheney considering run for public office?
Liz Cheney considering run for public office?
The Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen has been keeping a close watch on Liz Cheney, noting that the ubiquitous daughter of the former vice president “practically lives on cable news” these days. “She also lies routinely, accuses the president of helping terrorists, and is so mindless in her attacks on the nation’s elected leadership, she’s something of a national embarrassment,” Benen writes. And according to close friends of hers, she may be the next Cheney to run for office:
“She’s awesome. Everyone wants her to run,” said a close friend. [...]
“She’s a chip off the block!” said a longtime friend. [...]
“It’s a two-fer. She comes off a bit better than he does sometimes,” a conservative consultant said.
Asked about the possibility that Liz Cheney might make a run for office, Republican operative Karl Rove responded, “She might!” Watch it:
Rove sides with Cheney, says he would pick Limbaugh over Powell.
Rove sides with Cheney, says he would pick Limbaugh over Powell.
Earlier this month, Dick Cheney made headlines after telling CBS that he would rather have Rush Limbaugh in the GOP than Colin Powell. “Well, if I had to choose — in terms of being a Republican — I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think,” he said. Today on Fox News Sunday, Karl Rove said he agrees with Cheney:
Q: Dick Cheney said if it’s a battle between, or a choice between Rush Limbaugh and Colin Powell, he sides with Limbaugh. You?
ROVE: Uh, yes, if I had to pick between the two. But you know what? Neither one of those are candidates. Neither one of those are going to be people who are offering themselves for office. This is a false debate that Washington loves.
Watch it:
Former Bush Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge took a shot at Limbaugh today, telling CNN that Limbaugh can be “shrill” and uses language in a way “that offends very many.” “[W]ords mean things and how you use words is very important,” Ridge said. “But personally, if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourself but let’s respect others opinions and let’s not be divisive.”
Rove: Legal ‘Mess’ at Guantanamo Is Obama Administration’s Fault
Rove: Legal ‘Mess’ at Guantanamo Is Obama Administration’s Fault
In his national security speech Thursday, President Obama addressed the controversy being stirred by conservatives over his decision to close Guantanamo. Obama forcefully said that he inherited a legal “mess” that has consumed his administration’s time and energy:
There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we do not have the luxury of starting from scratch. We are cleaning up something that is – quite simply – a mess; a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my Administration is forced to deal with on a constant basis, and that consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.
Yesterday, on the Brian and the Judge radio show, Karl Rove was angered by Obama’s critiques of the Bush administration, and he disputed the fact that the Bush administration had left a “mess” at Guantanamo. When conservative judge Andrew Napolitano noted that Obama “does have a constitutional mess on his hands,” Rove responded by saying that the “mess” is being caused by litigation from Attorney General Eric Holder — who is apparently “arguing against the government”:
ROVE: What’s ironic to me is that yesterday he said “this is a mess that was left to me by my predecessors.” No. This is a mess, to the extent that it is a mess, left to him by his friends and allies like Attorney General Eric Holder. Remember, there are DOJ appointees of this president who are in court arguing against the government’s position on these kind of things. I mean, it is his friends and allies and in some instances, his appointees who are in court arguing for an expansion of the rights of the terrorists and arguing for an end to the military commissions.
Listen here:
It’s unclear what cases Rove is referring to. There has been no litigation on the military commissions since Obama took office in January.
The lingering legal mess at Guantanamo, of course, was created by Bush. Obama now must determine “where to imprison and/or try the remaining approximately 250 Guantanamo detainees, many of whom have already been declared eligible for release.” This is complicated by the fact that multiple detainees have not been able to go to trial because of inadmissible evidence obtained through torture or hearsay. The international community is also encountering similar problems in repatriating Guantanamo detainees. Perhaps worst of all, Bush’s kangaroo courts have produced only three convictions.
As Obama noted Thursday, “the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.”
Rove: Ending Torture Gives Terrorists ‘A Tool To Make It More Attractive To Recruit People’
Rove: Ending Torture Gives Terrorists ‘A Tool To Make It More Attractive To Recruit People’
As conservatives continue to rally around torture, Karl Rove last night praised Dick Cheney for his “reasoned, thoughtful series of observations” about how President Obama has made the U.S. less safe. He also conjectured that ending the practice of torture will provide al Qaeda with a great “tool” to help them recruit new terrorists:
ROVE: Taking, for example, the memoranda about the enhanced interrogation techniques and making them public has been a value to our enemy. It has served, frankly, I think, as a recruiting tool. They can now take these memoranda and go to prospective, you know, recruits and say, This is the worst that the enemy, the United States, would ever do to you, and they’ve even forsworn these things. We can help you, prepare you to deal with these things, but even the enemy is so weak they’re not going to use these techniques on you. And it’s given them a tool to make it more attractive to recruit people, and you know, this kind of thing is harmful to us over the long haul.
Watch it:
It is torture itself — not its cessation — that serves as a recruiting tool for new terrorists. Experts from FBI special agent Jack Cloonan to torture victim Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to former Army JAG Major General Thomas Romig all agree that Bush and Rove’s “enhanced interrogation” program recruited terrorists who have killed thousands of Americans. Indeed, former military interrogator Matthew Alexander cited Bush’s interrogation program as the most effective means to recruiting insurgents in Iraq who were battling Americans every day:
The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.
To read ThinkProgress’s extensive report, Why Bush’s “Enhanced Interrogation” Program Failed, click here.
Rove Says Obama Can’t ‘Have A Vetting Mistake’ With SCOTUS Nominee…Even Though Bush Had One With Miers
Rove Says Obama Can’t ‘Have A Vetting Mistake’ With SCOTUS Nominee…Even Though Bush Had One With Miers
Yesterday on The O’Reilly Factor, Karl Rove gave his “insights” into the Supreme Court nomination process. Rove talked about how prepared Bush administration officials were when they nominated their two justices and counseled the Obama administration to follow their example. He warned that “they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake after having five cabinet nominations or five administration nominations with tax problems”:
ROVE: I was part of a five party committee that spent years at the White House under President Bush preparing for the moment of the Supreme Court vacancy. We had thick notebooks on all prospects. We had everything from all of their writings and opinions to college transcripts to tax returns to, you know, charity dinner speeches, you name it. We had it. We studied those. It was why it was possible three months after a vacancy occurred to have Chief Justice John Roberts confirm to the Supreme Court. [...]
So I thought it was smart when President Obama said, you know, this is going to take at least six months. Because they do — they cannot afford to have a vetting mistake after having five cabinet nominations or five administration nominations with tax problems. They can’t offer up somebody they’ve not fully and completely vetted. And that takes time.
Watch it:
Rove left out one inconvenient detail: Harriet Miers. Justice Samuel Alito wasn’t Bush’s first choice to fill the vacancy left by Sandra Day O’Connor. Bush chose Miers, saying that her “talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice to safeguard the constitutional liberties and equality of all Americans.”
However, Miers’s thin resume beyond being Bush’s loyal friend (she was head of the Texas lottery and a member of the Dallas City Council) generated opposition not only from liberals, but also from conservatives who were embarrassed by the pick. Less than a month after she was nominated, Miers was forced to withdraw her name from consideration.
Heckuva job, Rove.
Transcript: More »
Rove Hypocritically Argues Right Should Oppose Potential Obama Court Pick Just Because She’s Liberal
Rove Hypocritically Argues Right Should Oppose Potential Obama Court Pick Just Because She’s Liberal
This morning on Fox News, former Bush political adviser Karl Rove criticized Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a potential nominee for the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy. “She could be even more liberal than Souter was,” Rove said. “She has a reputation on the Court of Appeals that she’s on for being very liberal.” He then argued that Sotomayor’s views would be cause for conservatives to oppose her, despite her qualifications for the position:
On the other hand, she’s also likely to draw opposition from conservatives because her opinions on the Circuit Court of Appeals have been very liberal and very expansive. In fact, this is going to be one the big dividing lines. President Obama…said he wanted a judge who would uphold the Constitution, but also a judge would be empathetic. These two things are in conflict.
Watch it:
Needless to say, Rove is being hypocritical. When he was shepherding Bush’s Supreme Court nominees through the process, he explicitly made the argument the President was owed deference to choose a qualified nominee and opposition party had a “responsibility to back” that pick. Here’s what Rove told the Washington Post in July 2005:
Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political architect, said precedents from the most recent Supreme Court vacancies suggest that opposition-party senators have a responsibility to back a president’s choice if they believe a nominee is qualified, even if they disagree with the person’s views. He also maintained that a strongly held ideological stance would not amount to “extraordinary circumstances” justifying a Democratic filibuster under a recent bipartisan Senate deal. [...]
Rove made clear that Bush will consult with senators in both parties, but that he has no interest in any kind of grand bargain between the White House and Congress in which legislators would give support in exchange for advance input on the president’s choice. Some Democratic groups have suggested that Bush seek an early consensus. Rove, however, cited his own weekend reading of the Federalist Papers to argue that the framers of the Constitution envisioned no such role for Congress, leaving the president alone to make nominations.
In the interview with Fox News this morning, Rove lauded the Bush White House’s preparedness for filling the Supreme Court vacancies when they arose and suggested the Obama White House is unprepared for making a nomination. It seems Rove has quickly forgotten his “active role” in the disastrous nomination of Harriet Miers, who came under relentless assault from Bush’s conservative base.
In Attempt To Placate The Right Wing, Collins and Specter Endorsed Pandemic Flu Funding Cut
In Attempt To Placate The Right Wing, Collins and Specter Endorsed Pandemic Flu Funding Cut
On February 5, Karl Rove took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to argue against President Obama’s Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act because, in his view, the spending was not targeted to create or preserve jobs. In particular, Rove complained about the fact that the bill included “$900 million for pandemic flu preparations.” He contended that such spending was unnecessary because the health care sector “added jobs last year.”
Rep. David Obey (D-WI) included the pandemic preparation funding in the package because he believed “that a pandemic hitting in the midst of an economic downturn could turn a recession into something far worse.” But Rove was not concerned with the actual substance of the funding.
Rather, as Paul Krugman explained at the time, in attempting to oppose and discredit the economic recovery package, conservatives in the media and Republicans in congress aligned themselves around a strategy that amounted to “snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny.” Unfortunately, this “snickering” at funding priorities had very real impacts.
Indeed, like Rove, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) was apparently unwilling to be seen as endorsing such “funny” sounding priorities as flu “preparedness” in an economic recovery package. Perhaps in an attempt to prove her fiscal conservative bona fides, Collins repeatedly insisted that Obey’s pandemic preparedness funding did not belong in the bill:
COLLINS: There’s funding to help improve our preparedness for a pandemic flu. There is funding to help improve cyber security. What does that have to do with an economic stimulus package? [CNN, 1/31/09]
COLLINS: I think everybody in the room is concerned about a pandemic flu. But does it belong in this bill? Should we have $870 million in this bill? No. We should not. [MSNBC, 2/5/09]
After the funding was stripped, another moderate Republican attempting to appear tough on “unnecessary” spending in the recovery package, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), endorsed Collins’ crusade against the pandemic preparedness funding on Fox News:
MS. KELLY: Okay. $780 million for pandemic flu preparedness, in or out?
SEN. SPECTER: Out. Very important projects, I took the lead along with Tom Harkin on some massive funding for pandemic flu, but it belongs in our regular appropriations bill.
Now, in light of the current outbreak of swine flu, their attempts to placate the conservative wing of their party by standing up against extremely important funding priorities looks extremely shortsighted. Ironically, those ultra conservatives in office who led the fight against the stimulus, like Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), are seeking government assistance in addressing the swine flu outbreak.
Rove Attacks Obama For Praising Turkey’s ‘Secular Movement,’ Even Though Bush Made Similar Statements
Rove Attacks Obama For Praising Turkey’s ‘Secular Movement,’ Even Though Bush Made Similar Statements
President Obama recently said in Turkey that a strength of the U.S. is that “we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”
The right wing is up in arms over Obama’s remarks, in which he also noted that “modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of principles.” Yesterday, Fox News’s Sean Hannity and Karl Rove lampooned Obama for saying the U.S. is a secular country. Rove accused Obama of identifying himself with the “Turkish secular movement” and denying the role of “faith in the public square”:
ROVE: And to somehow go to Turkey and in order to sort of identify yourself with this Turkish secular movement that began in the early part of the previous century and try and somehow make Turkey and America equivalent is to deny each nation’s reality.
And Turkey is a country that adopted a certain attitude toward the role of religion in the public arena, and America has a different attitude, and we have historically had, you know, a robust presence of faith in our public square and to deny that that’s a reality is, you know, very strange, I think.
“Look, America is a nation built on faith. I mean we can be Christian, we can be Jew,” Rove added. Watch it:
Turkey is a officially a secular democracy, dating back to the 1920s when the ruler Ataturk broke off ties with the Islamic caliphate. Indeed, like Obama, Rove’s former boss, President Bush, also saw Turkey as a role model for the entire world.
Turkey “provides Muslims around the world a hopeful model of a modern and secular democracy,” Bush said in 2002. “I appreciate so very much the example your country has set on how to be a Muslim country and at the same time, a country which embraces democracy and rule of law and freedom,” he said in 2004.
The attack on Obama’s remarks are part of a growing right-wing narrative. Yesterday on Fox News, Newt Gingrich claimed that Obama was “fundamentally misleading about the nature of America” in Turkey. Gingrich then made an astounding remark: “We are not a secular country.”
Of course, Obama is absolutely correct to note that the U.S. and Turkey are both secular. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution says that Congress can pass “no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Nor is Obama denying the “presence of faith in our public square,” as Rove alleged. In fact, Obama brought a diverse array of religious leaders to the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives this week.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll