"Since when is it off limits to "attack" one's political opponent?"

When the person being attacked is left of center.

The same applies up here when sissies like Cherniak think Dion should be above scrutiny.

It's not off limits to attack one's opponent, but Rove took dirty tactics and infected them with a virus.

You don't even need to go to such fabrications and campaign finance run-arounds like Swift Boat, but just look at the way he dealt with McCain to ensure Bush's primary victories with lies about out-of-wedlock inter-racial children he wouldn't acknowledge or even the way he rose to power even from his student days by cheating the student Republican presidential elections and getting Bush Sr. (then president of the party) to appoint him when he didn't win (sort of like Bush Jr. and the Supreme Court, actually; funny that).

Rove is a brilliant strategist who knocked around and stomped on a feeble and disorganized and directionless opponent (making them more feeble, disorganized and directionless) and for that reason the Democrats should be happy he's decided to pursue financial gain over service to the country and loyalty to Bush.

Rove is also one of the dirtiest political strategists ever to come to such high office and for that reason the Republicans should be happy he's decided to leave.

C'mon Ted, the way you paint Karl Rove you'd think he's an American version of Warren Kinsella.

Ted, where's your comment on the BBC thing? Just wondering. :)

Ted:
"It's not off limits to attack one's opponent, but Rove took dirty tactics and infected them with a virus."

As opposed to what the left has been saying about Bush, republicans, conservatives, etc.?

Are you on crack? There are no more rude, viscious, unfair and meanspirited people on the face of the earth than the left. Period.

Ted's comments on Rove demonstrate the soft underbelly of American Liberalism, which he seems to have accepted, hook line and sinker. His comments of stolen elections (hello Avi), is emblematic of the frustration far left democrats have with Rove, who along with Rumsfeld and GW Bush has snookered them in two elections. Legally, that is.

At least Ted acknowedges the moribund Kerry campaign, who managed to lose to Bush despite his being completely caught out on WMD in Iraq.

Ted, when you refer to dirty tricks, maybe you could harken back to the Dan Rather smear job, where Democrats jumped in without the true facts, then looking like idiots tripping over their tongues when the fraud came to light. Oh right, Bush stole an election from Gore.

Rove, with his hook-in with the so-called religious right (or is it vast right wing conspiracy?)was singled him out for particular notoriety among US lefties, mainly because he could sling mud with the best of them. They really hate that, much like our Dionskies here.

Good riddance. The presidency is a job, not a title.

The chief election rigger can go to private practice now, and fix elections for the highest bidder. No doubt he is the best, and good at pushing the fear-factor buttons to fire up his database of voters/sheep.

His methods work. Maybe the Liberals should hire him?

I see the canard of Rove=Swifties has been raised as well.

If the Swift Boat Veterans were the brainchild of the '04 Republican campaign, it has to go down as the most prescient in the history of politics. John O'Neill began calling out John Kerry's claims on the Dick Cavett show in 1971.

its too bad , Rove was the A-10 to the Dems,

silent , ugly , efficiently deadly and coming in low.

>> "If the Swift Boat Veterans were the brainchild of the '04 Republican campaign, it has to go down as the most prescient in the history of politics. John O'Neill began calling out John Kerry's claims on the Dick Cavett show in 1971."

... which is no doubt why O'Neill was hired on by the Swifties in 2003.

The idea of attacking, with truth or not, decorated veterans because of their subsequent opposition to Vietnam (like O'Neill) was not invented by the 'O4 Republicans. The idea of creating a shadow campaign that skirts election finance laws in order to create lies that impugn all veterans who were ever awarded a medal during combat was. (And the first person to say Moveon.org skirted election finance laws just as much/as badly gets a Purple Heart for Not Getting The Point. We get the governments and the corrupt/hapless leaders we deserve because we convince ourselves that doing worse is OK because the other side would do it if given the chance.)

It was truly brilliant campaigning, in fact. Not nearly as viciously brutal and dirty as employed by Rove to gain himself power or to ensure that Bush won the Republican nomination, or other tactics used when he had the reigns of government at his disposal.

And clearly dirty politics is a-ok around these parts judging from the whiners who commented above - 'wah, wah, wah, the lefties are dirty so we can be dirty too' - 'cause the party of Nixon has shown itself to be clearly above board and has a good history of working hard to set a higher standard!

But ted, could you explain why it is 'dirty politics' to inform the public that John Kerry was lying about his 'exploits in Vietnam'?

Wasn't Kerry insulting those veterans who had carried out Vietnam operations with integrity? Wasn't Kerry behaving unethically by pretending to honours to which he was not entitled? After all, it was Kerry who used his Vietnam exploits, deliberately, as a political crown, to garner votes for his 'bravery' and 'courage'. The problem was - it was all a lie.

You are quite incorrect is saying that people were 'attacking a decorated veteran' because of his later opposition to the war. No. It had nothing to do with his opposition to the war - but to his lying about his actions in Vietnam. Perhaps you think such lying is honourable?

Furthermore, the actions of the Swift Boat veterans had nothing to do with 'brilliant campaigning' - for you are implying that their telling the truth about Kerry was purely a political gesture. So, truth disappears and reality becomes purely political in your world?

Reality exists, ted, and John Kerry was trying to use his Vietnam 'image' as a political crown. The problem was, his crown was made of straw; he was lying. He was insulting those veterans who went through that war. He was also insulting the very nature of truth - and ethics. For political purposes. He deserved to lose.

Interesting comments from conservative blogger Backseat Blogger:

On Roves Resignation

So I see the master manipulator of American politics is leaving his post to ’spend more time with his family.’

I’m sure all the moonbats will be of their usual several minds. On one hand they’ll be happy to see him gone, on the other they’ll be sad that they won’t their arch nemisis to kick around anymore, and on an even further hand they’ll be upset that he hasn’t been charged with any crimes. More’s the pity in their eyes I’m sure.

What will probably get less play are the sighs of relief from sane Republicans. (The three or so ones left in the party, that is).

Sure Rove was successfull in delivering victories for the party in several hard fought elections. But at what price success?

In my view Rove is leaving before the Republican party reaps what it has sown.

You have only to look at the rubble of what he left behind. Today’s Republicans are simply Evangelical Christians at prayer. Moderate Republicans(ie ‘wets’ or Red Tories in our parlance) have been driven from the party or otherwise silenced. Republicans have gone so far to the right that the legendary uberconservative Barry Goldwater would probably be on the left wing of the party - if not a Democrat.

The American constitution specifically(and famously) bans religious tests to hold public office. And yet in today’s Republican party that is exactly what you have. Mitt Romney’s candidacy is probably doomed because his Mormonism is anethma to evangelical Christians(who don’t even believe that Mormonim is Christian). Nuanced views on other moral issues like abortion or homosexuality are also unwelcome to say the least. There now so many political litmus tests in the party that only a Christian religious wacko(or a candidate willing sell his soul and talk that talk and walk that walk) are now able to gain the nomination.

The only saving grace for the Republicans is the continuing inability of the Democrats - captured as the party is by its own rapid Kossites - to respond to the Republicans historic weakness.

So good riddance to Karl Rove. Don’t the door hit your ass on the way out.

Rove beat the Democrats - twice. That's why they are glad to see him gone. I guess some Republicans are glad too, at least according to article cited by Ted, that is Republicans who are actually Democrats!

I heard at church yesterday that US is in "post-Christian" phase, meaning it is a decidedly secular society, where most people, especially post baby boomers, have no experience whatsoever with any organized religion - attending services, praying, reading the bible, etc.

That seems at odds with the above analysis; since very few people identify with any organized religon, including Christianity, how could Rove have taken over the country with this small group, no matter how well "organized" they are.

Ted, this article attaches way to much importance to the "religious right" in US. Maybe Americans were sick of their president having sex in the Oval Office, as an ethical and character issue; maybe the Democrats are just very bad tacticians in electablility, as the LPC has become, with poor leadership. Maybe its something else.

The article above is incomplete; it matters not whether a Democrat or Republican wrote it. If Democrats continue to cling to this slippery rope and others, such than the bitter "we was robbed" nonsense from Al Franken, Gore, and Michael Moore, they might just lose the presidency again, when its crown is there for the taking.

ted - again, I'm puzzled about your post. I see you haven't replied to my queries about your post on Kerry and Vietnam and the Swift Boat. I'm sure you will - and I'm got some more questions.

You state that 'today's Republicans are simply evangelical Christians at prayer' - and you further define this 'set' as 'rubble'. Why? First, why are you denigrating religion? I'm an atheist but that doesn't mean that I have the right to denigrate those who use a religion to guide their behaviour. The evangelical Christianity, to my understanding, is a mode that focuses on the responsibilities of the individual for their own behaviour. That, to me, is the essence of the American nation - right from its beginning - that focus on the individual as a free thinker, speaker, and as responsible for themselves.

So- what's the reason for your hostility to this religious base? And furthermore, you know perfectly well that people of other religions - and of no religion - are also Republians. Your blanket generalizations - both within your Kerry-was-a-decorated-veteran (ignoring his lies) and this post - are 'a bit much'.

Nuanced views on abortion or homosexuality? I presume you mean SSM by the latter. How can you have a nuanced view on either? You are either for or against abortion. For or against SSM.
And what's so admirable about a nuanced view? Nuanced, is a 'latte-word' for 'relativism', ie, you take whatever viewpoint is most amenable to your current gang of friends.

Could you explain 'a Christian religious whacko'? What does that mean? I certainly have never heard of one in politics, though I've certainly heard Islamic 'religious whacko's in ME politics.

I'll await your explanations.

But Ted but Ted, what about the BEEB, Ted?

You don't think that maybe [gasp] media BIAS might have anything to do with Karl Rove never getting a break do you?

Karl Rove ate the Left's lunch, twice. Didn't cheat either, unlike the voting cemeteries and crooked Supreme Courts in certain states.

Rove is probably leaving the party now because after working 24/7/365 for seven years, herding cats, he needs a rest before he blows a valve. You think these guys are made of stone Ted? They get tired too.

Might also have something to do with the Republicans not listening to him the last two years or so and pissing off their grass roots big time. Not being listened to tends to make a guy like that a bit cranky, I'd think.

John Kerry INVITED every attack he recieved what with his cheesy "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty" psudeo-soldier schtick. How about "being for the war before he was against it?" THAT was priceless. How about throwing his purple hearts over the White Shouse fence? Or was it just the ribbons attached to these medals? Who really knows. He was a flake and he ran a flakey campaign.

How about all this non-news about a Harper cabinet shuffle? Giggles was like a schoolgirl waiting for Christmas on Question Period yesterday.

Wouldn't it be cool if Stephen Harper were to announce he just appointed Karl Rove to his chief of staff? Jack Layton and Carolyn Parish's heads would pop off!

Hey I can dream, can't I?

More conservative commentary on Rove leaving: Michelle Malkin:
>> Gigot’s interview is titled “The Mark of Rove.” Gigot lets Rove defend himself and his legacy, and what I see, alas, is the mark of self-delusion and blindness that has damaged the White House and the Beltway GOP.... Imagine how much better off the White House and the Republican Party might be now if he had, in fact, left a year ago.

yoo hoo, ted. How about, instead of pontificating on this blog, how about engaging in dialogue. Answer some questions about what you've said. Just because you say something, doesn't mean its valid. So?

Yeah Ted, what's yer take on the BEEB ferinstance?

Hee hee!

My condolences, Kate and Co.

Karl Rove orchestrated the attack on a Vietnam veteran in defence of a president and vice-president who would not volunteer to fight the war on foreign soil.

You might hate John Kerry's politics and the campaign he ran in 2004, but to attack a man who volunteered and served his country, in combat, is beyond disgusting.

johnny ringo - someone who served his country is not above and beyond severe criticism when he lies about that service.

Someone who exploits that service and the genuine service of others, by setting up that service as a symbol of 'qualification for president', i.e., for political gain is open to criticsm.

Someone who lies about his service to further his political ambitions MUST be criticized. And severly. Why? Because he is insulting those servicemen who served - and did not lie. Because he is insulting those servicemen who served - and did not use that service to advance their political careers.

Someone who does both - 'is beyond disgusting'. Now, ted seems to approve both of lying about one's service, and using that service and its lies - to further one's political agenda.Hmm.

Ringo. Although Kerry's "reporting for duty" crap was silly, he was hoisted on his own petard over the Swift Boats debacle. You seem to forget this guy came back from Vietnam and almost immediately called his fellow soldiers war criminals. That's the main reason Swift Boat Veterans called him out. Kerry was a hypocrite; that's not Rove's fault.

BTW, Democrats used every nasty dirty trick they could think of and still lost. It is naive in the extreme to not believe they would have run had a similar story emerged about Dubya. (Proof: they did run with Rather's fiction piece - imagine what they would have done had it been true). Oh yeah, I forgot, Bush stole two elections.

Oh, Phantom - but understand, only because it's you asking (well, OK, I'd probably answer Kate too) - WTF do I care about the BEEB? (Especially on this thread: you must know about Kate's rules about sticking to the topic and not hijacking threads.)

While I do think it is valuable and important to have a national media, a way for Canadians to communicate to each other without profit or corporate censorship interfering, I'm thinking more PBS/TVO and not fully sold on a government network competing with the private sector for advertising dollars and profit, especially when we have cancon commitments from the private broadcasters.

Satisfied, Phantom????

That shoulda started... "OK, Phantom...."

ahh, ted, the security, the righteousness, of selecting which questions you will answer, and which you will not. That means that you are basically, unaccountable, for you will only answer questions that don't put you 'in the hot spot'.

I asked you questions about your support for Kerry's denigration of the Vietnam veterans, and his open lies about his own actions in Vietnam, and his use of that war as a partisan tactic for votes. Well?
I asked you questions about your definition of 'evangelical Christians' and some proof that they and 'their agenda' (???) run the US..to rubble.
And - 'nuance' - what does this mean?

So? Or, are you unaccountable? You made the assertions; you provide accountability.

You still around, Phantom?

Just realized you may have been referring to Kate's post on the BEEB. As for bias in the state media, I don't doubt that there are ideological biases for a second.

What I do whole-heartedly and fully doubt though is that these biases line up with any kind of party or government support. You could not have found a network more negative toward the Liberals that the CBC in the last election. The CBC tends to more often than not treat the opposition as kind of irrelevant and to attack whoever is in government, which is rarely a left-left party like the NDP.

The private networks and other private media tend to show clear moderation or conservative bias, taken as a whole. Sun Media, for example, is the largest media group in the country.

The private networks show Conservative bias?

We get a confession from a certified BBC news bender, and this is all you got Ted?

You're kidding.

The BBC/CBC have nothing in common with ABC/NBC/CTV/Global/Fox etc. And not Conservative bias, conservative. And to be more specific, not social conservative, I grant you that.

But the print/online media? Definitely at least as much conservative bias as liberal bias. No question, especially when you look at Canada or the US as a whole.

Ted

Ted, I can't comment on your statement because I'm giving up the flamethrower for lent.

But let me just say you're missing some more contrary evidence here:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006819.html

For myself, I've got a monograph the size of a paperback on the gun control "debate" in the USA and Canada over the last 30 years. There is no doubt of liberal, not to mention Liberal and DemocRat bias in the MSM on this issue. You can't find one story (or journal article, or study) in 100 that even mentions the facts. I did the reading, I got the facts, 6 mb worth.

The US NAS agrees with me Ted. The panel was packed with devout anti-gun types and they still agreed with me in the end.

Other specific issues have equal or greater amounts of bias. When was the last time you read an MSM article containing the medical risks associated with abortion? (In which I personally think the government should have no role whatsoever, just to be clear). How about an article on all those funky climate sensor sites? Nuh uh? Why not, I wonder?

You'd have to be trying to miss it, and frankly Ted you are definitely trying.

Incidentally, a systemic conservative bias in the MSM would be no better than the current systemic liberal bias, IMHO. If I have to fact check the sons of b1tches on every little thing, they're more trouble than they're worth. I want the goods, I don't want to know what some editor thinks about it.

Ted, I must disagree with your argument that CBC was hard on LPC in last fed election. They were sycophantic incompetents - recall their "Reality Check" show where only CPC policies were "analyzed." Their town hall discussions were a joke.

CTV, on the other hand, turned on Martin big time. The MSM was quite upset with Martin, especially those who flew with him and were constantly scooped on Liberal announcements.

If you said CTV vice CBC I would agree with you.

That was most definitely not my impression Shamrock. The CBC lead most nights with the leader of the opposition and not the Prime Minister, regurgitated his talking points and only occasionally provided a Liberal counter-point, then followed with a brief of the PM's event of the day highlighting miscues and rarely spending much time on his talking points and always including Conservative (and sometimes NDP and sometimes BQ) counter-points to Martin's statements.

Deserved or not, there is no question that The Media (including the paper press and the CBC) not only turned strongly against the Liberals in the last election but in favour of the Conservative Party and Stephen Harper.

Mind you, so did a lot of Liberal supporters.