Karl Rove is smart and covers his tracks extremely well. He has not been nailed down on anything but seems to be accused of everything. He has often been exonerated.
I can only suggest a thorough reading of Wikipedia's entry on him. The long list of shenanigans of which he has been accused might be considered an indictment of sorts in and of itself. The best I can do to defend my assertion is to refer to a proverb, 'Where there is smoke, there is fire.' This may seem spurious to many of you. Fair enough. But I stand by it, the list is too long and the accusations too possible. He is a second-hand player, no reason to go after him if there are not elements of truth.
If you read the Wikipedia entry, you will see that Rove also has Republican enemies. This is an indication that Rove's tactics are designed to gain power within as well as without the party.
I stand by what I wrote, but can't give Alan the specifics that he wants. That said, I am also aware the Wikipedia has its critics for good reason, but the list of corroborating reports on other sites satisfies me.
8 comments:
This is exactly what I am talking about. The left makes accusation after accusation without any evidence whatsoever. After a while there is so much smoke that everyone believes there must be a fire. In actuality, it was a smoke bomb thrown by the left (no fire, just a lot of smoke).
It's a pattern I see a lot from the left. When there is an effective conservative, the smoke bombs start flying. Examples include Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr, "Scooter" Libby (who was convicted of perjury, unrelated to the original charges), Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, and on and on. I could write a whole book on this, but I have a life to live.
I forgot to add that you can access older posts from the blog archive on the left side of the screen.
Doug, quoting wikipedia is like quoting a gossip column or taking anything off this blog or any blog as fact.
Wikipedia itself says that it is an open forum. If you do a search on Wikipedia it says, "Wikipedia is a free, open content, community-built encyclopedia with thousands of articles on topics from A to Z."
It is an open content community built encyclopedia. Anyone can add anything they want to it and claim it to be fact. If I wanted to say the sun turns blue every 15,000 years it would be posted as such until someone changes it. Anyone who reads it in the mean time could just accept that as fact.
You might as well quote "Peanuts" comic strip.
Continuing about Wikipedia...from its own words, when you click on "about Wikipedia" the second paragraph reads as follows....
"Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Wikipedia articles. Most of the articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard.
I have problems with your comments on Wikipedia.
Besides, I invited you to look at a lot of other sites.
I will add that Wikipedia is not that bad. If you scroll to the bottom, you will see that there are a lot of reputable references. The article itself is laced with links. It is certainly, by any measure, not merely a gossip column. I use it a lot in my research for classes and it does not lead me astray when I compare it to knowledge I already possess or when I use it side by side with other articles on the same subject.
'To an appropriate standard' would not include a claim that the sun turns blue every 15,000 years.
Alan's comment about the left using the pile up the smoke tactic so as to create the illusion of a fire is a good comeback, but it doesn't mean at all that it my accusation is not true. Go ahead and do some reading. Inappropriate push-poll questions is one of his tactics.
Well, an accusation does not make a man guilty, and a lot of accusations don't make him even more guilty.
Your position is very typical of the left. That is, "the nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it's
the seriousness of the charge that matters."
A word about Wikipedia. It has gotten better, but it mainly has problems with political and religious subject matter, but it's science articles are quite good. I depend on Wikipedia to help me understand patents that I am translating.
I know that this post is about Rove so I will just say this about Wikipedia....
It didn't exist when I was in college and I don't have a need for it now persay. I have run across it on the internet and I know that my boys have been told at school not to quote it in their homework in various classes. I have made a change to it myself to see if it could be changed.
I appologize if I offended anyone if I insinuated that they are less intelligent by using it. I just don't trust if.
I don't think anyone is offended. Heaven knows we are discussing weightier matters with no hard feelings.
("Heaven knows..." hmm, there is so much of our language that would change if religious expressions were removed from our language."
Post a Comment