Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYT: In Preview of G.O.P. Campaign, Rove Tears Into Democrats
New York Times ^ | January 20, 2006 | ADAM NAGOURNEY

Posted on 01/20/2006 3:19:18 PM PST by West Coast Conservative

Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, gave nervous Republicans here a preview of the party's strategy to maintain its dominance in the fall elections today, assailing Democrats for their positions on terrorism, the White House eavesdropping program and Mr. Bush's attempt to shape the federal judiciary.

For 26 minutes, after calling for civility in politics in a packed speech before the Republican National Committee, Mr. Rove offered a lacerating attack on Democrats that other Republicans said was a road map for how the party would deal with a tough electoral environment. Mr. Rove sharply criticized Democrats for their opposition to tax cuts and Mr. Bush's Supreme Court nominations, but he left little doubt that once again - as has been the case in both national elections since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks - that he was intent on making national security the pre-eminent issue in 2006.

Mr. Rove speeches this early in an election year have proved to be accurate predictors of what Republican candidates would say in the fall, and thus every seat in the ballroom at a downtown Washington hotel was filled. He lacerated Democrats for what he described their "cut and run" policy on Iraq, for blocking a renewal of the broad antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, and for challenging the legality of the administration's widespread use of warrantless wiretaps in the face of widespread criticism.

Mr. Rove made no mention of Republican opposition to both the Patriot Act and the surveillance program, which has posed a political problem for this White House, while he laid out his case against the Democrats, speaking rapidly.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2006agenda; 2006election; bush; congress; democrat; gopstrategy; republican; rove
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: atomicpossum

Rove/North in '08.


21 posted on 01/20/2006 3:43:44 PM PST by MrEdd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KCRW

Where's Rove been? Just lying low?


22 posted on 01/20/2006 3:44:08 PM PST by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Buckeye

Delusional Disorder
American Description
Diagnostic Criteria

1. Nonbizarre delusions (i.e., involving situations that occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, infected, loved at a distance, or deceived by spouse or lover, or having a disease) of at least 1 month's duration.
2. Criterion A for Schizophrenia has never been met. Note: Tactile and olfactory hallucinations may be present in Delusional Disorder if they are related to the delusional theme.

Criterion A of Schizophrenia requires two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period (or less if successfully treated):
1. delusions
2. hallucinations
3. disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence)
4. grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior
5. negative symptoms, i.e., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition

Note: Criteria A of Schizophrenia requires only one symptom if delusions are bizarre or hallucinations consist of a voice keeping up a running commentary on the person's behavior or thoughts, or two or more voices conversing with each other.
3. Apart from the impact of the delusion(s) or its ramifications, functioning is not markedly impaired and behavior is not obviously odd or bizarre.
4. If mood episodes have occurred concurrently with delusions, their total duration has been brief relative to the duration of the delusional periods.
5. The disturbance is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.

Specify type (the following types are assigned based on the predominant delusional theme):

* Erotomanic Type: delusions that another person, usually of higher status, is in love with the individual
* Grandiose Type: delusions of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity, or special relationship to a deity or famous person
* Jealous Type: delusions that the individual's sexual partner is unfaithful
* Persecutory Type: delusions that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way
* Somatic Type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition
* Mixed Type: delusions characteristic of more than one of the above types but no one theme predominates
* Unspecified Type


Differential Diagnosis


23 posted on 01/20/2006 3:45:33 PM PST by Rome2000 (Peace is not an option)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
For more than a hundred years, THE STANDARD of professional journalism was the NY Times. In all that time, one of the rules of political journalism is when referring to a politician for the first time within a story, his title is given followed by the full name as the politician prefers it used.

For example:

President Bill Clinton said...
Senator John McCain said...
Governor Jeb Bush said...
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said...
President George W. Bush said...

When the politician is referred to again in the story the standard is to use his last name only.

For example:

then Clinton said...
then McCain said...
then Bush said...
then Clinton said...
then Bush said...


Now, for the first time in history, news organizations such as CBS, NPR, The NY Times, CNN and numerous others are substituting "Mr" in place of the title of a politician everywhere it appears in a story. Amazingly they ONLY seem to be using that standard for President George W. Bush.

As in:

Mr. Bush said...
and
...then Mr. Bush said...

It's AS IF they can't bring themselves to use the word "President" with the name "George W. Bush" anywhere in a story because they somehow believe that he stole TWO elections in a row and is not the legitimate president. Since only a bunch of kooks and idiots on wacky conspiracy web sites believe that, and no self respecting journalist would have faith in such nonsensical crap, there must be some other explanation for the change in standard. I'll be anxiously waiting to hear what that explanation is from the journalists themselves.
24 posted on 01/20/2006 3:47:27 PM PST by spinestein (The King of Media is dead. Long live The King!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

After hearing Jerry the Whale Nadler in the segment on Fox New I wonder if the NYT will say he stepped over the line.


25 posted on 01/20/2006 3:48:50 PM PST by mware (The keeper of the I's once again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

" Too tame. Try Coulter/Rove in '08. ;-)"

STILL too tame. Dobson/HALLIBURTON in '08 ;^)



26 posted on 01/20/2006 3:48:57 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media & NUKE the DNC Class Action Temper Tantrum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Nagourney must not have a widespread vocabulary. Either that or some pages have been torn out of his Roget's thesaurus.

I agree. He seems to have a particular fondness for certain words:

"Mr. Rove offered a lacerating attack...." and "He lacerated Democrats..."

27 posted on 01/20/2006 3:50:54 PM PST by webheart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
At the end of the excerpt the writer couldn't help but show his true Times colors with this innocent enough appearing remark...
"Mr. Rove made no mention of Republican opposition to both the Patriot Act and the surveillance program, which has posed a political problem for this White House, while he laid out his case against the Democrats, speaking rapidly."

I'd simply ask him, quite openly and, rhetorically,Why should he numbn_ts?

Rove was out to 'fire up the troops' with a strategy for the mid-term election period. Why in the name of sanity would he introduce the discord among some weak sister brother Republicans to turn the very positive speech sour with the introduction of a negative remark? The answer is of course, he wouldn't. Only the pablum-puking Mr. nagourney would..., in revealing himself to be a less than impartial commentator, but we all knew that to start with. Try again numbn_ts!

Mr. nagourney would do well to revisit Journalism 101 and explain just while he added the totally inaccurate and superfluous reference...", speaking rapidly" to his sentence and in so doing constructed a grammatically poor sentence. The sentence sufficeth without said addition, but it is also true that Mr. Rove spoke pointedly and clearly and not at all rushed or rapidly. I saw his remarks on TV. As a matter of fact. I have never seen Mr. Rove ever speak rapidly in public. Apparently more liberal, left-wing hallucinating.

28 posted on 01/20/2006 3:51:58 PM PST by doctorhugo (Concerned Citizen and Proud Navy Vet...Damn the torpedoes, ALL AHEAD FLANK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blurblogger
STILL too tame. Dobson/HALLIBURTON in '08

Or Pat Robertson/Ray Chocolate Nagin. ;-)

29 posted on 01/20/2006 3:52:39 PM PST by peyton randolph (As long is it does me no harm, I don't care if one worships Elmer Fudd.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Can ya see the huge smile on my face??


30 posted on 01/20/2006 3:54:25 PM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Shawnlaw
Did someone say "Magnificent Bastard"?


31 posted on 01/20/2006 3:56:56 PM PST by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: Blurblogger

Diebold/Halliburton 2008!


33 posted on 01/20/2006 3:59:23 PM PST by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mware
I'm from New York and I can testify with great accuracy that when Mr. Nadler steps over the line, the line is henceforth and forevermore, out of your field of vision. Trust me on that!
34 posted on 01/20/2006 3:59:36 PM PST by doctorhugo (Concerned Citizen and Proud Navy Vet...Damn the torpedoes, ALL AHEAD FLANK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fisherman90814

What's the problem with Chertoff?


35 posted on 01/20/2006 4:00:00 PM PST by West Coast Conservative (Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
I'll be anxiously waiting to hear what that explanation is from the journalists themselves.

I hope you don't grow old and gray waiting..........because it is going to be a long time

36 posted on 01/20/2006 4:00:16 PM PST by Popman ("What I was doing wasn't living, it was dying. I really think God had better plans for me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
Amazingly they ONLY seem to be using that standard for President George W. Bush.

Actually, they just used it for "Mr." Rove above.

37 posted on 01/20/2006 4:00:20 PM PST by JennysCool (Non-Y2K-Compliant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
I was channel surfing and Lou Dobbs had on a real unbiased panel(/sarcasm) of david gergen, jeffrey toobin, and joe klein, and they were all saying how 2006 was going to be a blowout for the dems, like they said in 00,02,04, etc.

We know what the talking points are going to be and it is amazing how out of touch these liberal beltway pundits are.

38 posted on 01/20/2006 4:00:43 PM PST by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fisherman90814

Ummm .. Bush isn't running for reelection


39 posted on 01/20/2006 4:01:29 PM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: doctorhugo
That jumped out at me, too. After a piece on Hillary, does this writer mention that the left-wing base is all over her case on Iraq and her pandering support of the flag burning amendment?

Um, you don't have to answer, that's a rhetorical question.
40 posted on 01/20/2006 4:01:40 PM PST by SaxxonWoods (Regime change in Iran and Syria is required, and required now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson