http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-...ve-2012-12

Aparently, Rove is being removed from Faux News for his on-air meltdown on election night. As of now, they need specific permission from producers before booking either one of them.

Good riddance, I say.

I knew of this guy even here in Europe. I have noticed in political debates with friend here, that there are certain "terms of extreme", examples of situations which are perceived as horror situations and are therefor used by some in political debate as a horror examples of what could be.

"The american military industrial complex", "private company provided healthcare", "War in Iraq" are such terms for example.

Karl Rove and his campain tactic of diverting political discurs away from reality and facts, was one of these "horror examples" people gave to give an example of a situation which should never become reality here.


I hope now that he is gone, facts and reality will find their way back into the political discurse of the republican party.

They should keep him on. A Republican civil war is good for the rest of the country.

(December 5, 2012 at 9:37 am)Faith No More Wrote: They should keep him on. A Republican civil war is good for the rest of the country.

That depends on who wins.

If the Republicans get crazier and even further to the right but still manage to get enough political power to enact legislation, they could be VERY dangerous.

That being said, the Republican party was a very weak party from just before World War II until Regan revitalized the party. They lost most the presidential elections and they were generally the minority in congress/senate. I hope this happens and, honestly, I can see it happening. The Republican party has hitched their trailer to the 'angry old white guy vote.' Problem is, that's a dead end demographic. The ranks of democrats are going to swell because they're appealing more to groups that are going to be involve in future elections, namely immigrants, hispanic people and, most importantly, the youth vote. As the older vote dies off, the younger vote becomes the older voters and if they're already solidly alligned with democrats, it's going to be an uphill battle to get them to vote Republican.

The infighting of the Republican party will make it very difficult for them to consolidate any real political power on the national level, so I don't see them having the clout to pass any legislation except at the state level in the red states.

At the risk of being a annoying.

I notice again. That the term WAR is used to overexaturate the story

sorry, it is still a strange use of language for me

Next in line Bill O Reilly please.

(December 5, 2012 at 10:06 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: At the risk of being a annoying.

I notice again. That the term WAR is used to overexaturate the story

sorry, it is still a strange use of language for me

It's an American thing. We use the term a lot.

"War on poverty"
"War on drugs"
"War on crime"
etc.

Are we a violent culture or is that just my perspective?

(December 5, 2012 at 9:51 am)TaraJo Wrote:

(December 5, 2012 at 9:37 am)Faith No More Wrote: They should keep him on. A Republican civil war is good for the rest of the country.

That depends on who wins.

If the Republicans get crazier and even further to the right but still manage to get enough political power to enact legislation, they could be VERY dangerous.

That being said, the Republican party was a very weak party from just before World War II until Regan revitalized the party. They lost most the presidential elections and they were generally the minority in congress/senate. I hope this happens and, honestly, I can see it happening. The Republican party has hitched their trailer to the 'angry old white guy vote.' Problem is, that's a dead end demographic. The ranks of democrats are going to swell because they're appealing more to groups that are going to be involve in future elections, namely immigrants, hispanic people and, most importantly, the youth vote. As the older vote dies off, the younger vote becomes the older voters and if they're already solidly alligned with democrats, it's going to be an uphill battle to get them to vote Republican.

You dems are celebrating way too early....I heard this same song and dance from the Democrats, that they needed to reorganize, needed to move to the middle, needed to change leadership...., when they lost the House in the 2010 mid-terms, when G.W. won re-election, and when Clinton lost the Senate and House to the Republicans in the mid-terms of his first term in office....besides it's very difficult to unseat a sitting incumbent president....after Barack is gone I doubt that there will still be the same enthusiasm among minorities and younger voters to get out and vote...

(December 5, 2012 at 11:17 am)A Theist Wrote: You dems are celebrating way too early....I heard this same song and dance from the Democrats, that they needed to reorganize, needed to move to the middle, needed to change leadership...., when they lost the House in the 2010 mid-terms, when G.W. won re-election, and when Clinton lost the Senate and House to the Republicans in the mid-terms of his first term in office....besides it's very difficult to unseat a sitting incumbent president....after Barack is gone I doubt that there will still be the same enthusiasm among minorities and younger voters to get out and vote...

You may be right. However, one of the most startling facets of the current Republican party is their inability to compromise. The reason that's important is that you have to be willing to compromise some in Washington, especially after an electoral defeat. If they're going to adamantly stick with the same policies we turned down this time, why is the public going to change its mind and vote for them the next time around? They're going to have to repackage themselves and their policies and to do that, they're going to need to make some compromises.