Rove and Libby: Hubris Authors Never Contacted Us

The truth is NOT in them.

That tells us about LaRaza, something with which some of us are already familiar. But once again, you make a remarkably stupid assertion "Karl Rove evidently supports ethnic cleansing" which is of course unsupported by any evidence. There is nothing in the article you linked indicating Rove's opinions of LaRaza's ideology or any affiliation thereof, much less any approval of "ethnic cleansing." You are practicing a propaganda tactic called 'guilt by association.' That dog won't hunt.

I'll try to check out what he wrote yesterday; I missed it.

He has always seemed to be consistent and level headed in his writings.

hanks.

So I guess it would be fine (by you) if he spoke at an Aryan Nation Rally, or perhaps at a KKK rally?
At some point personal responsibility has to come to the forefront and pandering and sucking up for political gain has to take the back seat. Rove has not subscribed to that theory.

Why post an article that barely even touches anything Rove said when you could simply post just a link the speech in its entirety [PDF format]and let people make their own assumptions?

By just pulling out a few words so people will read more into it than there is and then spending the rest of the time addressing the organization LaPrenza, it's easier to get people to disregard everything Rove says because ...well, he said it in a speech that people belonging to a bad organization actually listened to. Oh my.

The extent of his "pandering" to them is that they were "blessed" with one of his speeches? That devil.

We may not care for every item in his speech [our adversaries care even less for much of it] but he puts forth a far better argument for the administration's case than you've managed to put forth for your own, whatever that is. And while the administration hasn't solved the problem that has been generations in the making, they've done more than just spew populist rhetoric, which is about all most of the critics have done.

Rove didn't say anything specifying that illegals are "Americans" - he referred to immigrants that come here to share in our common ideals being Americans and tied it in that same paragraph to enforcement of immigration laws AND securing our borders, which by definition pretty much excludes the outlaws and folks that refuse to assimilate from being considered American. His speech as a whole was about the cultural neccessity of assimilation. But you'd know that if you had actually read it, instead of just getting your panties in a wad over a sentence fragment which alone doesn't represent the paragraph it was in, much less the entire speech.

I'm pretty sure the folks at LaPrenza weren't thrilled about those comments in that speech which you neglected to post and which, conveniently, the WND article took care not to mention, either. I enjoy reading WND but they sometimes have a bad habit of editing comments to deliberately obscure what was actually said... the same way the NYTimes does for the leftwing. Drama, scandal and fear mongering helps sell conservative books just as well as liberal ones.

I'm sure Rove's comments about the importance of learning English to our society and that very American dream of which he referred to when using the generic term "immigrants" didn't please the Aztlan crowd, who most certainly dislike any ideas promoting assimilation. If he was pandering he could have just done what a lot of politicians do and say we should become a bilingual country instead of one which stresses linguistic assimilation.

I don't think it's pandering to LaPrenza when he said "we must secure the borders." [That's a part of his speech which you and your article also didn't mention.] I don't think they are too thrilled with what has been done so far. He listed several things which have been done to make the borders more secure, but never implied that the task is complete and it's time to quit or that there is no room for improvement.

And I don't think it's pandering to say we need to enforce laws in the interior and not just the border. The pro-illegal crowd does not want better enforcement, better means of tracking and identifying or any pressure on those who hire, and they don't want policies which make it difficult for those deported to come running back the very next morning.

I don't think the libs will be too thrilled about the idea of penalizing illegals so as to make the immigration system more fair for those who are waiting to gain citizenship legally. We may disagree with Rove about what the penalties should be, perhaps to demand harsher ones, but he does admit and address the problem and his solution isn't to let by gones be bygones as too many opponents of the administration erronously imply with their little hot-button words. Our opponents and his want a totally no-strings amnesty.

Since this thread is not about immigration or about Rove giving speeches to organizations which while worthy of discussion on their own don't relate to the Plame leak case, feel free to copy the speech in its entirety to its own thread if you want to address it further, so we don't clutter up this one.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Why don't you go find an immigration thread instead of hijacking this one? Geeeeezzzzzz.....