From my new VDARE.com column "Rove Means Never Having to Say You're Republican," I review my six years of pointing out the widely acclaimed "Genius's" flagrant incompetence:
Even merely as a short-term political manipulator, Rove completely botched the immigration issue. And it's not as if our criticism of the electoral logic of the Bush-Rove dream of increasing Mexican immigration was only recently validated. Instead, Bush and Rove advanced their desire for more Mexicans in 2001, 2004, 2006, and 2007. And each time Congressional Republicans rejected it as bad for the country and bad for the GOP.
As I wrote back on September 10, 2001 (!!!) in the wake of strong Congressional resistance to the Administration's immigration mania:
"So why did Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush braintrust misread the political situation? Why did the White House fail to anticipate Congressional Republicans' concerns that amnesty would undermine the GOP? The Bush team appears to have been the victims of residing in an echo chamber with a mainstream media corps that—for reasons of innumeracy, fashion, self-interest, self-image and fear—failed to challenge the Bush advisers' sloppy thinking about immigration." [Analysis: Why Bush blundered on immigrants By Steve Sailer, United Press International
Luckily for Rove and Bush—there’s no other way to put it—3,000 Americans were murdered the next day. So the massive public humiliation of having Republicans in Congress decisively crush their dreams of a Hispanicized polity that would elect future generations of the Bush dynasty was postponed for six long, wasted years.
Rove's immigration strategy, along with the assumption in the press that it was a political masterstroke, was always based on the interaction of political correctness, smugness, and sheer laziness.
David Frum wrote recently in the New York Times:
"In my brief service as a speechwriter inside the Bush administration, I often wondered why it was that skeptical experts on issues like immigration could never get even a hearing for their point of view. We took the self-evident brilliance of our plans so much for granted that we would not even meet, for example, with conservative academics who had the facts and figures to demonstrate the illusion of Rovian hopes for a breakthrough among Hispanic voters." [Building a Coalition, Forgetting to Rule, August 14, 2007]
The real problem for the GOP is less Hispanic voters than Hispanic leaders—92 percent of all elected Hispanic politicians are Democrats.
The reason for the 92% Democrats is obvious if you stop and think about it (which apparently nobody does): since most Hispanic citizens vote Democratic, most Hispanic-majority districts in the country are Democratic. And those are the ones in which Hispanics are most probable to get elected. So, it makes all the sense in the world for politically ambitious young Hispanics to join the party that's more likely to get them elected to office: the Democrats.
So, what Bush and Rove have been doing by not enforcing the immigration laws is helping create a new Democratic Latino elite that will plague the GOP for decades.
As politics, Rove's immigration ploy was negligent at the levels of simple logic and numeracy. [More]
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
32 comments:
What about the happy talk about Rove engineering a permanent Republican Majority? Seems to be he’s done his best to contribute to engineering the opposite by seriously weakening and splitting the Republican Party on major issues like immigration.
People buy into larger than life heros/villains and the MSM are eager to provide. A mitigating factor for Rove is that he is probably more effect than cause in this march to madness. If the elite powers that be insist on open boarders in some form, as it clerly appears, Rove is simply responding to what he perceives to politically expedient in his characteristic ruthless amoral fashion.
- JAN
...for reasons of innumeracy, fashion, self-interest, self-image and fear—failed to challenge the Bush advisers' sloppy thinking about immigration.
Innumeracy? Fashion? Self-interest? Self-image? Fear?
There is a such a gaping omission here that it renders this summation next to useless: malice. It is raw animus that ultimately powers the open borders agenda. It is leftist hatred of traditional America. The fact that leftist hatred in the form of "Right" liberalism has now permeated the Republican establishment should not phase the intelligent observer and cause them to deduce that "sloppy thinking" has put the nation on this radical path.
Sloppy thinking!? How can you seriously characterize the national push to make whites a minority as sloppy thinking? The open borders zealots are stone cold calculators. Theirs has been a ruthless and diabolical strategy to elect a new people. It has been a full-court press of propagandist culture-cracking in government, in media and in the schools.
Steve, please stop giving the benefit of the doubt to the people behind this demographic warfare. They do not deserve it. A few years ago you were on the leading edge of this issue. But frankly others, even those in the mainstream, like Malkin, are refusing to give the benefit of the doubt and are closer to calling a spade a spade, while you offer up "sloppy thinking", while discounting malice as a motivator.
As politics, Rove's immigration ploy was negligent at the levels of simple logic and numeracy.
This is fine. But how about providing context? Mainly that it was never supposed to be logical!! The numbers were never supposed to add up for traditional or conservative Republicans or the GOP as we know it!!
The plan was for the Republican Party to move left and accommodate the new America and put the white Christian base in its place. That plan is on track bigtime. Essentially at this point it is mission accomplished. In the 2008 cycle Republicans will be given another RINO. By the 2012 cycle the astounding facts on the ground described in the 2010 census will force a reality check: tack hard left or perish as a major political party. The demographic war will have been won. Checkmate. Your thesis that Rove is a stupid, incompetent man is nonsense. Rove is a leftist. Stupidity is not the issue.
Now we are in the middle of another bullsh*t news cycle of "immigration crackdown" stories and what is your response? Why aren't you flagging the despicable Drudge and the other water carriers? Bush & Co. have flooded us with illegals and now they are turning the tap back a miniscule amount in hopes that we will congratulate them on a crackdown and go back to sleep.
Please, enough triumphalism already. The borders remain open. The flow continues. Time is on their side, not ours. The victory over amnesty was actually only a stalemate, a stay of execution for America as we've known it. In the big picture, the open borders America haters are winning by a wide margin.
They don't do what they do on immigration for the Hispanic vote -- that's just their cover story. What they do on immigration is for campaign contributions from cheap labor interests.
Why are they such zealot supporters of H-1b -- what ethnic group are they trying to appeal to? Their support for this visa is in exchange for money and in the process are most likely chasing high tech workers away from the GOP.
People forget that the creation of a larger consumer class as well as the creation of a larger class of people who will do menial work is good for the elites.
Manipulating the political process is de rigeur.
anon 9:18:
"while you offer up "sloppy thinking", while discounting malice as a motivator."
Steve does have a problem in that often he's just too much of a nice guy to see just how malevolent people can be.
Kudos to Anonymous @9:18 for hitting right on the motivations of Rove and the Bush administration!
Anonymous: Steve, please stop giving the benefit of the doubt to the people behind this demographic warfare. They do not deserve it.
I was going to post something like this on the "What is there left to be said about Iraq" thread, but I never got around to it.
Anyway, in fairness to the poor guy, I think that Dubyah might just be the only person in the entire world who actually believes any of this politically correct, multi-culturalist, Kumbayah bullshit.
[Are we allowed to say "bullshit" on iSteve? If so, apologies to Mrs. iSteve & the little iSteve munchkins.]
I think that you have to consider the possibility that Dubyah really does believe, in his heart of hearts, that all peoples are essentially the same, with the same desires, the same hopes & dreams, and the same goals in life [both personally & civilizationally], and that if only you shower them with sufficient Evangelical Love, then magically they'll all pull the GOP lever.
It's the same with his vision for Iraq - if only we spend $500B+ building schools & roads & water treatment facilities & hospitals, then the Muslims will magically embrace the doctrines of Republicanism - limited government, rule of law, respect for life, freedom to worship, civic virtue, peace & tranquility, blah blah blah - and everyone will live happily ever after.
[Which is maybe true so long as your intent is to "worship" in a mosque, and the peace & tranquility you desire is the peace of the graveyard & the tranquility of 72 raisins.]
But The Left isn't saddled with any delusions about this - they know damned well that all this PC-Kumbayah drivel really is just nonsense - that it's simply the latest fad in propaganda & disinformation necessary to succeed at the polls every other November.
You see this every now and again, such as in Steven Thernstrom's famous admission that his liberal friends secretly confess to him that the reason they support abortion is to rid the country of all the blacks & the hispanics.
Which reminds me of a poll that I saw sometime in the last year or so [can't find a link - if anyone has a link, then I'd love to get it] which showed that American Blacks are so stupid [God bless their poor souls] that they actually believe the Democrats are the pro-life party in America.
Sigh.
Can't win for losing.
"People forget that the creation of a larger consumer class as well as the creation of a larger class of people who will do menial work is good for the elites."
It's all fun and games for the elites until dark-skinned prols elect a Chavez. Then everyone's screwed.
anonymous: It's all fun and games for the elites until dark-skinned prols elect a Chavez. Then everyone's screwed.
Or, in the case of a Mugabe, everyone's dead.
We will probably see a big decline in illegal immigration in the near-term, and the Bush administration will say this is because of their new enforcement policies. More likely, it will have been because of the real estate bust, and the subsequent decline in construction jobs drawing in migrant laborers.
Steve does have a problem in that often he's just too much of a nice guy to see just how malevolent people can be.
Steve is an extremely effective writer......He wins hearts and minds. He wins arguments without namecalling and vitriol. He does it all with a sunny disposition which is devestatingly effective.....in sort of Reaganesque fashion. Going for jugular and conspiracy theories wouldn't work as well.......But it's not like Steve a big softy or anything. I searched anti-white on the front page and it turns up several hits......So this website is hardly shying away from the issue.
Behind closed doors at places like NewRepublic or CNN, it can be assumed that Steve is despised on a level with Limbaugh and O'Reilly.....based on rhetorical skills alone. The Left has never been able to come up with any equivalent rhetorical talent in print.......or on tv or radio. Vdare gets serious traffic these days.....and much of the credit is due to the Sunday night Sailer column. Conclusion.....Sailer style is strategically sound. Hothead posters advice might be heeded by other writers....Let others be bad cop or the attack dog. Sailer is the voice of reason........
I like this description of yours in particular for the disastrous consequences of the Bush/Rove regime:
"Invade the world, Invite the world, In hock to the world"
That's the neocon philosophy in a nutshell, it's like having the worst of many worlds-- an imperialistic war policy that leads us into disastrous conflicts like the fiasco in Iraq, ensnares us in tremendous debt, while simultaneously flinging open our borders so much that the country's very racial makeup is fundamentally altered, the founding population becoming a minority.
You know, I've been intrigued by the fact that the countries most rapidly self-destructing themselves through mass immigration, also tend to be the most imperialistic and most intensely involved in those ill-considered wars. The USA obviously, but the UK and Canada also. Like the USA, the UK in particular is knee-deep in Iraq and Afghanistan, still apparently fantasizing about its old imperial globetrottings before the many wars of the 20th century (the successful anti-British anti-colonial wars in places like Ireland and Cyprus as much as the World Wars themselves) bankrupted and destroyed the British Empire. At the same time, the British ruling classes are undertaking a full-scale replacement of the Anglo-Saxon population with non-Europeans-- nothing like this has occurred since the Anglo-Saxon settlements right after the fall of Rome!
Canada, New Zealand, even Australia a miniature of the same-- involved heavily in Afghanistan and sometimes also Iraq, determined to get ensnared in these conflicts abroad while transforming themselves demographically at home.
"Invade the world" really does seem tantamount to "invite the world," and it's why the neocon ideology has become so unpopular in the USA in particular-- even as, regrettably, it seems to become more powerful among the decision-makers of both parties.
I think this is also why Americans are so incensed about their choices for the 2008 election. The Republicans obviously are in thrall to the neocon agenda, but most of the Democrats aren't any better. Hillary Clinton in particular seems to be directly in the service of the neocons-- advocating extensions of the Iraq War, invading other nearby countries, increasing H-1 visas to kill off what's left of the US native high-tech industry and other offshoring idiocies-- so much so that even millions of Democrats hate her and will never vote for her.
IOW, democracy in the USA is dead for all practical purposes, since there really is no choice to vote against the "invade the world, invite the world orthodoxy." My guess is that if the Democrats are moronic enough to nominate Hillary (and there's every indication to suggest this), most people will still turn out to block her from the Oval Office considering her generalized repulsiveness across the political spectrum, voting for whomever the GOP puts up. (Edwards or Obama, maybe even Richardson OTOH would probably win handily.)
It's just that, in the halls of power, there really is no antidote to the neocon ruling ideology in either party. Nothing's going to change until the USA self-destructs-- we'll have a non-Euro majority by around 2025ish (well before 2050-- in fact, New Zealand, the UK and Canada will hit this non-Euro point before even we do), and we'll be utterly bankrupt from our foolish wars and ridiculous defense spending.
At that point, tough to guess the future, but my guess is that we'll have a version of the ugliness that's hit other countries in such a state of absolute collapse, but even worse due to our sheer size and tensions-- probably martial law, mass flight of capital and skilled people from our shores, worst-case scenario involves a new Civil War-ish disaster, otherwise some variant of fracturing and break-up of the nation on some mixture of political/economic/racial/ethnic lines.
Anybody's guess where the seat of advanced, technological civilization will shift to in 20 years. Probably China really is going to be running things, Japan and Korea will still be in decent shape. Britain is toast, but at least part of Europe will probably hang on-- Germany seems to have gotten the good sense to evict it's Turks and limit immigration to the Nordique peoples of the world spread on 3 continents and historically I guess they've had the highest of high cultures so they'll be in a decent state of affairs. This change of tune is hardly unusual, even France, the Belgians and the Dutch are reforming their immigration laws very harshly. Russia's probably a goner the way they're going-- Central Asiatic Turks conquering and colonizing what's left of Russia, the reverse of prior historical patterns-- although maybe some remnant will survive. Chile? Uruguay?
Who knows, but something tells me that I should probably be brushing up on my Mandarin Chinese skills. They might be coming in handy an awful lot sooner than most of us anticipate.
The discussion of Hispanic electoral districts reminded me of an issue I've often thought about, but haven't seen discussed much. It seems that the creation of supermajority minority districts after the 1990 census must have played a huge role in the Republicans controlling Congress for 12 years. Concentrating minority voters in one district tends to make the surrounding districts more Republican.
Amit
"Steve does have a problem in that often he's just too much of a nice guy to see just how malevolent people can be."
Steve fully understands the malice. But he is scientifically interested in the issues and not an ideologue. He really wants to dig to the bttom of things.
That's why it’s so much fun to read his writing compared to say Amren which is ideologically motivated and thus ultimately dull. Simple knee-jerk reactions to the left is ultimately not going to be better than the mind-numbing nonsense they turn out. Its about getting to the bottom of things.
"The Left has never been able to come up with any equivalent rhetorical talent in print.......or on tv or radio. "
The left does have some serious raw talent (many high-intelligence Jews operate the left-leaning media). But their ideology restricts creativity and does not square with the facts on the ground. How frustrating it must be for an intelligent open-minded journalist to have to supress at least 50% of the news stories around them just because the AP- or NYT-stylebooks do not "allow" it.
They have fallen into the same trap as the structural conservatives which predated them in the 50's and 60's, and which they so enjoyed unseating.
"the Belgians and the Dutch are reforming their immigration laws very harshly."
This is an interesting thing to watch. The Flemish, who were forced into a union with the Walloons in 1830 by Napoleon in order to create Belgium, are thinking of declaring independence. That would wreck Belgium and with it the French-speaking liberal clique situated in Brussels (who have all the blood of the Congo on their hands, b.t.w.). What that would do to the EUnuchs I don't know. Maybe that's what they have been preparing the EU intervention force for. I could imagine that they would have no hesitation to use full force in such an instance, whereas they usually pussyfoot when a mad muslim maniac comes running towards them with an AK47.
Anyhow, Flemish independence would boost the immigration-reform movement in the EU.
Rove is a star student of Irving Kristol, the father of Neoconservatism.
Kristol said:
"...one can say that the historical task and political purpose of Neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills, into a new kind of conservative politics suitable to governing a modern democracy."
Let's consider that Rove has brilliantly pursued a Holy Grail vs Sacred Cow strategy which embodies the "against their wills" spirit of Neoconservatism. It is a strategy where the most important issues of BOTH Left and Right are accommodated, with the understanding that by doing so the Sacred Cows of the Left will eventually neutralize and topple the Holy Grails of the Right.
We hear a lot about God, Guns & Gays as being the pillars of the Right today. But that is too broad a brush. Rove correctly strategized that he, as a Neoconservative, needed only to hold on to specific Holy Grail issues of the modern Right: Abortion, Traditional Marriage, Guns and Tax Cuts. All other issues were in play, meaning they could be ceded to the Left.
The Sacred Cows of the Left are a Future Non-White Majority, Anti-Christianity, Affirmative Action, Hate Crime Legislation. It should be a no-brainer that any Republican administration would strongly resist these programs. But, mysteriously, that has not happened under Bush. Steve Sailer has pounded the table on the administration's glaring dislocation on the immigration issue. And others have pounded the table on the other issues but, where the rubber meets the road, nothing substantial is done to roll back the Sacred Cows of the Left.
And as long as one believes that Rove gives a damn about traditional America, the whole thing is a great mystery. But if one recognizes that Rove is completely on board with Kristol, and what Kristol really wants is Neosocialism (Cultural Marxism now, Economic Marxism later), then the mystery is solved.
The thing to remember is that this period is still only the early stage of Neoconservatism. As we can see by the promotion of Guiliani for 2008, in the very near future Traditional Marriage will be jettisoned. It is only a matter of allowing the media to fully condition the younger generation.
It will take considerably longer to create an environment that allows jettisoning of the other big issues Abortion, Guns and Tax Cuts. But those will go on the chopping block eventually.
Invade/Invite falls down outside of the US, and even there it fails as any serious analysis.
The NATO contribution to efforts in Afghanistan are figleafs. NATO as a serious military force is as laughable as the Holy Roman Empire. NATO could not and would not use serious military force to stop the atrocities in the Balkans. In the Hague, Dutch peacekeepers are being sued by the few survivors of Srebenica over their promises to protect them and then surrender to the Mladic death squads. Testimony is fairly graphic but also indicative of the failure of the European military to do anything. Even against a non-mechanized force of basically militia men, Europe's hollow military could do nothing and surrendered their weapons immediately upon the arrival of the Serbian militia.
In Afghanistan, the Dutch refuse to fight the Taliban and instead "invite them to tea." Driven by fears of casualties and PC, the other token military contributions by Spain, Germany, France, and so forth have been laughable.
Let's not forget the Royal Surrender Navy which went hands up to Iranians in speed boats.
The Royal Army is a decent professional force, and has performed well in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, they lack any independent logistical capability, particularly sea lift. The Royal Navy itself has fewer ships than the Belgian Coast Guard. France has one aircraft carrier that is rusting away in Marseilles. The propulsion system does not work.
The anon poster is wrong about New Zealand. They have no forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq. They have no defense forces at all, their Navy consists of IIRC about 3 ships (that's it) and their Air Force has been disbanded.
Like Europe, New Zealand relies on distance from poor and dangerous neighbors and the "free ride" on US defense spending (itself at historic lows per GDP).
Australia is a special case. It is right next to about 200 million desperately poor Islamic Indonesians who would like to run Australia and take the land, wealth, and people for their own uses. Australia being a nation with a small population cannot afford the defense spending to fully guard against this and therefore NEEDS a patron/protector which is the US.
Spain, France, Britain, and Italy are likely to find themselves the subject of coastal raids. Until the mid-Nineteenth century, Barbary pirates commonly raided and took slaves from those nations. They are all weak, lack any real effective defense forces or the will to build and use them on the part of the elites (who are politically threatened by defense spending and military forces). Absent US protection there is nothing preventing say Morocco which has many more people and is desperately poor from simply conquering Spain.
If anything US military response to Muslim provocations has been too timid and half-hearted. Well in line with GWB and Rove's idiot ideas about "transforming" American politics by importing lots of Mexican voters (as they become citizens). Bush-Rove obviously believed the nonsense about "Religion of Peace" as they did about "Pete Wilson destroyed the Republicans in California through Prop 187."
Nothing's going to change until the USA self-destructs-- we'll have a non-Euro majority by around 2025ish (well before 2050-- in fact, New Zealand, the UK and Canada will hit this non-Euro point before even we do)
The UK and Canada are whiter than the United States. Unless many millions leave those countries the USA will be first to go non-white majority.
"Steve is an extremely effective writer..." (Anonymous) I agree wholeheartedly,but I hope Steve is not one of those guys who talks about himself in the 3rd person...:b "Jimmy likes you,Jimmy wants to go out with you..." :D
What about the happy talk about Rove engineering a permanent Republican Majority? Seems to be he’s done his best to contribute to engineering the opposite by seriously weakening and splitting the Republican Party on major issues like immigration.
I've read the back and forth over all this on sites like NRO. The settled determination (pre-2006 elections) was that while Bush may not be a perfectly conservative president, he has at least managed to help congressional Republicans win elections. Post-2006, they can't even say that - the GOP is in the worst electoral shape it's been in since 1992.
So what has Bush done now, except discredit Republicans all-around? The Reagan GOP was based on the fusion of economic interests with social ones. There was a lot of logic to the idea of traditional American values, smaller government, and lower taxes on investment.
Within the GOP the fiscal conservatives pretty much always get their way while social conservatives can't point to any real successes at all. More and more the neofedualists are demonstrating their desire to jettison the social conservatives completely.
Unfortunately for them (and fortunately for us) they can't win with that strategy.
Karl Rove?
To say it again:
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Steve,
Anon. 8/21/2007 9:57 AM said (skip ahead if desired):
Invade/Invite falls down outside of the US, and even there it fails as any serious analysis.
The NATO contribution to efforts in Afghanistan are figleafs. NATO as a serious military force is as laughable as the Holy Roman Empire. NATO could not and would not use serious military force to stop the atrocities in the Balkans. In the Hague, Dutch peacekeepers are being sued by the few survivors of Srebenica over their promises to protect them and then surrender to the Mladic death squads. Testimony is fairly graphic but also indicative of the failure of the European military to do anything. Even against a non-mechanized force of basically militia men, Europe's hollow military could do nothing and surrendered their weapons immediately upon the arrival of the Serbian militia.
In Afghanistan, the Dutch refuse to fight the Taliban and instead "invite them to tea." Driven by fears of casualties and PC, the other token military contributions by Spain, Germany, France, and so forth have been laughable.
Let's not forget the Royal Surrender Navy which went hands up to Iranians in speed boats.
The Royal Army is a decent professional force, and has performed well in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, they lack any independent logistical capability, particularly sea lift. The Royal Navy itself has fewer ships than the Belgian Coast Guard. France has one aircraft carrier that is rusting away in Marseilles. The propulsion system does not work.
The anon poster is wrong about New Zealand. They have no forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq. They have no defense forces at all, their Navy consists of IIRC about 3 ships (that's it) and their Air Force has been disbanded.
Like Europe, New Zealand relies on distance from poor and dangerous neighbors and the "free ride" on US defense spending (itself at historic lows per GDP).
Australia is a special case. It is right next to about 200 million desperately poor Islamic Indonesians who would like to run Australia and take the land, wealth, and people for their own uses. Australia being a nation with a small population cannot afford the defense spending to fully guard against this and therefore NEEDS a patron/protector which is the US.
Spain, France, Britain, and Italy are likely to find themselves the subject of coastal raids. Until the mid-Nineteenth century, Barbary pirates commonly raided and took slaves from those nations. They are all weak, lack any real effective defense forces or the will to build and use them on the part of the elites (who are politically threatened by defense spending and military forces). Absent US protection there is nothing preventing say Morocco which has many more people and is desperately poor from simply conquering Spain.
If anything US military response to Muslim provocations has been too timid and half-hearted. Well in line with GWB and Rove's idiot ideas about "transforming" American politics by importing lots of Mexican voters (as they become citizens). Bush-Rove obviously believed the nonsense about "Religion of Peace" as they did about "Pete Wilson destroyed the Republicans in California through Prop 187."
I quote the whole thing because I read it nine times and could not tell what the author was talking about.
Did catch the phrases:
"NATO [should have used] serious military force to stop the atrocities in the Balkans."
"the failure of the European military to do anything"
"the Royal Surrender Navy which went hands up to Iranians in speed boats"
"US defense spending [is] at historic lows per GDP"
"the elites[...]are politically threatened by defense spending and military forces"
"about 200 million desperately poor Islamic Indonesians who would like to run Australia and take the land, wealth, and people for their own uses"
"therefore NEEDS a patron/protector which is the US"
"Spain, France, Britain, and Italy are likely to find themselves the subject of coastal raids"
"Barbary pirates[...]raided[...]took slaves from those nations. They are all weak"
"Absent US protection there is nothing preventing say Morocco[...]from simply conquering Spain"
"US military response to Muslim provocations has been too timid and half-hearted"
"the nonsense about 'Religion of Peace'"
Bomb, bomb, bomb 'em all? Dr. Strangelove, call your office!
Seriously, though, I think I've identified something of a nut. Don't get me wrong, I love nuts (as long as they're in no position to do harm).
He dropped some references at the end to isteve themes as covered in previous articles by you, but these references looked like non-sequiturs to me.
Or he could just be a guy "having you on," as the Limeys in the Royal Surrender Navy say.
"In Afghanistan, the Dutch refuse to fight the Taliban"
Not quite. Check this out:
http://www.pzh2000.de/spezial.php?id=20
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-90623.html
Steve, the latest issue of The Atlantic Monethly ( which I think is now bimonthly ) has an story about Karl Rove and an article about George Jr.'s speechwriters.
Both pieces are rather long and wordy and I only skimmed them. The Rove piece was apporently written before he resigned. Karl says therein that George is the big idea man and that Karl is just the helper. The big idea Karl gives as an example is -- get this -- Social Security "reform." "Reform" is now a tainted word, similar to "diversity." Nothing I saw mentioned Iraq or Mexicans.
The speecwriter piece was also snooze. Chimpy's pompous three speech writers might as wwell be the Three Stooges, for all the good they've done him.
Anyway, the inference I drew is that Rove's story line and book is going to say that all the big blunders, a.k.a. big ideas, of the Bush Admin. were george's, not Karl's.
"Steve is an extremely effective writer......He wins hearts and minds. He wins arguments without namecalling and vitriol. He does it all with a sunny disposition which is devestatingly effective.....in sort of Reaganesque fashion."
Written by one of Steve's henchmen or Steve himself for all I know. Yes, I've totally revised my opinion of ol' Steve. He's not so much a jerk as a cad.
Anonymous writes:
"Steve's henchmen"
I've got henchmen? Cool!
By the way, what's a hench anyway?
Middle English hengsman, henshman, servant to a person of rank : hengest, horse (from Old English) + man, man; see man.]
I wrote the "Steve is an extremely effective writer" post and my name is not Steve.......
AFAIK henchmen dole out beatings on the behalf of a boss...all I did was pay compliments to the owner of the blog........so such is the mentality of the lefty lunatic that this act is equal to a beating :)
I think what irks the most is the sunny disposition that Steve maintains majority of the time.........It makes the opposition crazy.........the happy leftist does not exist and at the bottom line it is other folks contentment+optimism that angers a lefty.....#1 chin up #2 look on the bright side #3 glass half full displays these all conflict with Critical Theory culture..and those people that remain w/o bitterness in the face of persecution and attack are despised above all :)
"...and those people that remain w/o bitterness in the face of persecution and attack are despised above all"
Sometimes Steve takes a swipe at the other conservatives. You're talking about his attacks on lefties, I'm talking about his tendency to snoop and expose things that have nothing to do with politics or conservativism. In short, sometimes Steve is a bit brutal to those he's taken a dislike to for politically neutral reasons.
I realize he's a Sagittarian which means there may be an astrological source for our clash in personalities. Though I'm supposed to get along just fine with Sags, I've noticed that in real life, they often annoy me by being glib and condescending. I don't like Virgos much either but this is a personal & irrational prejudice so I try to be nice to them. Sags on the other hand, deserve whatever verbal beatings I can dole out. They're often long overdue for a tongue lashing.
As for you, anon, you're obviously more lackey than henchman (must be a virgo).
Anonymous, at 8/24/2007 2:40 PM said,
he's a Sagittarian which means there may be an astrological source for our clash in personalities
Now who's "Reaganesque"?
Nancy Reagan, I mean.
It is less likely that the GOP misread public opinion on immigration. More likely that business and zionist interests trump sane policy.
Post a Comment