Pelosi and Reid REPEAT THE AWFUL KERRY CAMPAIGN of 2006....
(4 articles cited: Pelosi/Reid's tepid "New Direction" game plan, Karl Rove's designation of the Democrats as the party of "hate and anger," Editor & Publisher article confirming that Ann Coulter has not lost ONE of her syndicated column subscribers despite her calls for the murder of American leaders and writers; Joe Conason documents the EFFECTIVENESS of Republican "Smear and Fear" divisive hate, fear, and disenfranchisement campaigns.)
#1. Pelosi and Reid REPEAT THE AWFUL KERRY CAMPAIGN of 2006...
#2. Joe Conason: Dems OWE IT TO THEIR VOTERS to FIGHT BACK vs Repub. SMEAR tactics!
#3. Karl Rove accuses Democrats of being "the party of ANGER and HATRED"
#4. Ann Coulter doesn't loose A SINGLE media outlet despite her continuing, on-going calls for the MURDER of people in America and across the world.
#1. Here Senator Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi offer up their GAME-PLAN for election 2006:
"A New Direction."
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/pdf/NewDirection.pdf
___________________________
We hate to be critical here C-dems.blgspt.com, but "NEW DIRECTION" sounds as PATHETIC and TEPID as John Kerry's 2004 mantra, "Time for a Change."
BY COMPARISON, Democrats, do YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT KARL ROVE IS PUSHING for the GOP's GAME PLAN in 2006...??
well, that's easy... here it is:
<< "...the LEFT of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY has served as a way to MOBILIZE HATE and ANGER... HATE and ANGER, first and foremost, at this president and conservatives." >>
THAT is KARL ROVE SPEAKING on how Republicans are going to win midterm election 2006 - portray the DEMOCRATS as the party of "HATE and ANGER" !!
Did you get that, Senator Reid and Rep. Pelosi?
YOU are talking the generic and fuzzy "NEW DIRECTION!", while Karl Rove is accusing Democrats of "HATE and ANGER"!!
Once again, the basic formula is: IF the American people see the Democrats as AFRAID to CONFRONT the LIES of Karl Rove, the Republican Party, and the Bush White House, then voters will see the Democrats as BEING AFRAID... and thereby NOT WORTHY of WINNING ELECTIONS that control the destiny of America in dangerous times.
Al Gore REFUSED to SPEAK OUT for children of poverty and low-income families TOSSED OFF OF pre-school, after-school, and health-care programs by Gov. Bush's cruel budget-slashings, and as a result the Republicans WERE ABLE TO portray Gore as wishy-washy and vacillating, if not an outright liar.
Today in 2006 the stakes are far higher - the Democrats no longer control the Senate or White House (as they did in 2000), and the Repub. Party has MONOPOLY CONTROL OF ALL BRANCHES OF US GOVERNMENT - House, White House, Senate, Supreme Court, federal judiciary, all agencies of government, control of corporate America (which underwrites the Republican party), and even control of the "4th Estate."
NO better proof of this last element is needed - that Republicans CONTROL of the press/media, aka "4th estate" - than that KARL ROVE portrays the DEMOCRATS as "the party of HATE and ANGER," while it is ANN COULTER who is out there on NBC, Fox 'news', and DOZENS of other "major media outlets," PROMOTING THE HATRED OF Democrats and 'liberals,' and even calling for the "fragging" (murder by hand-grenade of men on one's own side) of Representative John Murtha, and it was Ann Coulter who said that Tim McVeigh "SHOULD HAVE" bombed the New York Times building while he was bombing the Oklahoma government building.
<< The Universal columnist [Ann Coulter] has also "joked" about killing other people, including Arabs, Muslims, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and suggested that blowing up The New York Times building might be a good idea, especially if the reporters and editors were still inside. >>
Of course, the worst part about all this is that "HATE and ANGER" **DEFINES** the Karl Rove/Bush/Republican agenda.
And it isn't just "HATE and ANGER" where Karl Rove SUCCEEDS in INVERTING (flipping) the truth: Rove is also in the process of portraying spendthrift TAX-CUTS-in-time-of-war George W. Bush as holding the line against UNNECESSARY SPENDING." !!!!!!!
This is a REPEAT of the 2000 campaign, where Al Gore REFUSED TO CONFRONT the social-slashing programs of Texas Governor George W. Bush, while Bush funnelled huge TAX CUTS to Texas' wealthiest corporations, BANKRUPTING the Texas state budget and trashing former Governor Ann Richards Texas state budget surplus in the process.
Karl Rove:
<< And [Rove] took on the "big spenders" of both parties, while arguing for the Line Item Veto:
"In reality, there are 3 parties in Congress: Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators. And guess what? The Republicans and Democrats are in a minority. So you need to have this important and executive tool that allows a President to shine a bright light on some unnecessary spending and then to have Congress vote up or down as to whether or not to override his veto." >>
IF THE DEMOCRATS CAN NOT ANSWER, and CONFRONT, the SMEAR and FEAR tactics of Karl Rove, George W. Bush and the Republican Party, AMERICAN VOTERS WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE *AFRAID*, and thereby NOT DESERVING OF NATIONAL LEADERSHIP in perilous times.
==========================================================
#2.
Fear and smear
The GOP is back to its old Rove tricks, attacking Democrats as unpatriotic cowards. If only they could lead as well as they demagogue.
By Joe Conason
Jun. 16, 2006
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/06/16/iraq_war/
| At last we know what Republicans mean when they talk about a "plan for victory" in Iraq. They still have no real plan to achieve victory in Iraq itself, where civil conflict worsens, casualties continually rise, and even the elimination of the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq seems unlikely to reduce the carnage. They have no plan to extricate our troops or even to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. But they do have a plan to win a partisan victory in the congressional midterm elections -- by using the Iraq war to divide this country.
That should come as no surprise, however, since Republicans have employed the same cynical strategy to prevail over Democrats in the past two election cycles.
Newly released from the prospect of a criminal indictment, White House advisor Karl Rove immediately resumed his old habits. The "architect," as the president has called him, is following the political blueprint for the 2002 and 2004 elections: Denigrate the opposition as weak and irresolute; portray the Republican Party as the bulwark against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11; and impugn the character of Democratic critics, especially those who have served their country in combat.
As he has done in years past, Rove frankly explained his approach in a speech to members of his party. Addressing the New Hampshire Republican Party Monday, he seized the opportunity to imply that Sen. John Kerry and Rep. John Murtha -- both of whom, unlike Rove, volunteered to serve in Vietnam -- are cowards who favor "cutting and running." Suggesting that their dissent from the White House line on Iraq proves that they are unreliable, he said: "They may be with you for the first shots. But they're not going ... to be with you for the tough battles."
The second "tell" regarding Rove's strategy surfaced this week in a "confidential" memo issued by House Majority Leader John Boehner in anticipation of Thursday's debate over a phony House resolution on the war. Boehner instructed his minions to pretend that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the same, to insist that 9/11 made war in Iraq unavoidable and to rewrite the history of the past five years to smear the Democrats as "irresolute" and "wavering."
The truth, of course, is quite different. The Democrats in Congress gave the president total support in the aftermath of 9/11, with an authorization to use military force against the nation's enemies and a moratorium on partisan criticism. They have continued to offer unstinting support for the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, even though the White House has botched that effort, too.
And as Bush prepared for war against Iraq, the Democratic leadership went along with his administration's misleading insistence on the apocalyptic danger posed by Saddam Hussein. Only many months later, when the administration's dishonesty and incompetence were proved beyond doubt, did Democrats begin to question the administration's disastrous policy.
Rove's aggressive tactics have served his party well in two previous national elections, but he faces a different order of battle this year. Despite the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the president's strange six-hour visit to Baghdad, Americans remain skeptical at best about the war -- and Bush himself is still mired in awful poll ratings. That may have something to do with the reality of the war, which is not susceptible to partisan spin or media manipulation.
Despite the longing of the mainstream media for a Bush rebound -- and despite the bluster of Rove and the Republican congressional leadership -- the facts on the ground in Iraq are not comforting. The death of Zarqawi and the president's quick conclave with the Iraqi cabinet were not the only landmarks of his "good week" -- nor even necessarily the most significant.
The number of American dead in the war has reached 2,500, and the cost to American taxpayers has passed $320 billion. Take those numbers and add to them the tens of thousands of young wounded soldiers whose lives have been ruined, and the tens of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis. Then try to measure the incalculable damage to American prestige in the world inflicted by the scandalous and stupid mismanagement of the occupation.
That is the price we have paid so far for a war with no end in sight and no exit strategy -- a war that will conclude, at best, with an Iraq ruled by Islamic law and allied with the hostile regime in neighboring Iran and, at worst, with a civil war that threatens to plunge the entire Middle East into chaos. That is the price we have paid for the head of Zarqawi, who could have been wiped out with his little band of terrorists three years ago.
That will be the price we pay to ensure a Republican "victory" next November -- unless Americans act on their growing intuition about these demagogues, who are so brilliant at campaigning and so incapable of governing.
____________________________________________________
#3.
Karl Rove Gives Exclusive Interview to New Hampshire Activist Network
June 16, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060616/pl_usnw/karl_rove_gives_exclusive_interview_to_new_hampshire_activist_network108_xml
To: National Desk, Political Reporter
MANCHESTER, N.H., June 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Leading up to his appearance at the New Hampshire Republican State Committee's annual dinner, Karl Rove granted an exclusive interview to VictoryNH.com -- New Hampshire's first citizen activist network - - running the gamut from tax, energy and immigration policy to earmark reform and New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary.
Co-founded by Ambassador Joseph Petrone and Manchester activist Harry Levine, Victory NH's mission is to use the power of New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary to bring together political thinkers and policy makers to shape the 2008 presidential debate.
"In a time of increasing discord in Washington, we saw Mr. Rove's visit as the perfect opportunity to give the President's positions a fair, unfiltered hearing before the citizen activists who have long begun the process of driving the national debate," Levine said.
In a wide-ranging interview, Rove detailed the positive impact of the President's tax cuts, outlined the Advanced Energy Initiative and spoke favorably of Congressman Mike Pence's Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act.
Additionally, Rove answered the attacks from the left-wing blogosphere:
"The Internet for the Left of the Democratic Party has served as a way to mobilize hate and anger -- hate and anger, first and foremost, at this President and Conservatives, but then also at people within their own party whom they consider to be less than completely loyal to this very narrow, very out-of-the-mainstream, very far Left-wing ideology that they tend to represent."
And took on the "big spenders" of both parties, while arguing for the Line Item Veto:
"In reality, there are 3 parties in Congress: Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators. And guess what? The Republicans and Democrats are in a minority. So you need to have this important and executive tool that allows a President to shine a bright light on some unnecessary spending and then to have Congress vote up or down as to whether or not to override his veto."
-----
Victory NH [a Republican campaign operation - ed] began as a grassroots Internet effort led by Ambassador Joseph Petrone. Since its founding in 2004, it has grown into a network of activist groups across New Hampshire, working together to defend the principles and policies of lower taxes, smaller government, a strong national defense and a free- enterprise system; as well as protecting New Hampshire's first- in-the-nation primary.
===========================================
#4.
Newspaper Clients, and Syndicate, Stick With Coulter
By Dave Astor and Greg Mitchell
Published: June 16, 2006
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002689746
NEW YORK Ann Coulter hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients, or the support of her syndicate, Universal Press Syndicate, despite her nasty remarks in her new book about 9/11 widows and her comment in an online interview implying that, perhaps, U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) should be "fragged."
A Universal spokesman said there were no discussions going on there about dropping the columnist.
Why is Coulter keeping all her subscribers? "Ann's client newspapers stick with her because she has a loyal fan base of conservative readers who look forward to reading her columns in their local newspapers," Universal Director of Communications Kathie Kerr said in a statement, after being queried today by E&P.
Kerr added that the syndicate "represents a full spectrum of editorial viewpoints, from very conservative to very liberal writers and cartoonists. Many people enjoy Ann's writing -- after all, her latest book did go to No. 1 on the best seller on Amazon within 48 hours of its publication."
In a phone interview, asked if Coulter's recent remarks went beyond political views to appalling personal remarks or hate speech, Kerr replied: "We've never felt that it is a syndicate's job to censor commentary. It is the nature of commentary that it is to inflame." She said they "leave it to editors" to run or hold certain columns or cartoons, but they are not allowed to edit them.
Editors, she pointed out, have chosen not to run certain "Doonesbury" or "Boondocks" cartoons, which come from the liberal side of the spectrum. Asked if any paper had ever decided not to run a conservative column or cartoon, she said, "If it's happened, we don't know about it."
Kerr said the syndicate signs up the creators and then "we leave it up to the newspaper." Asked several times if the syndicate took ultimate responsibility for choosing its clients and distributing their work -- or if there was any line Coulter might cross -- she repeatedly said, "It is not our job to censor."
Coulter's remarks in recent days that have stirred outrage did not come from a column. Kerr said the syndicate is only concerned about "what is in the columns that we distribute."
In her latest column today, Coulter writes, among other things, " that two facts are now universally accepted -- liberals are godless and Hillary's husband is a rapist."
The huge book sales for Coulter have come after a massive publicity drive during which, among other things, she called certain 9/11 widows "witches" who have been "enjoying" their husbands' deaths. She also said that their husbands were likely going to divorce them anyway.
Another Universal creator, liberal editorial cartoonist Ted Rall, also satirized some 9/11 widows in a 2002 drawing -- but, in his case, was hurt financially. Rall, who called Coulter's comments "a lot meaner" than his cartoon, noted that he lost WashingtonPost.com as a client.
And, in a Tuesday column linked on Rall's blog, Phil Reisman of The Journal News in White Plains, N.Y., discussed other fallout from that 2002 cartoon: "Rall was effectively roasted by the conservatives. For example, right-wing bloggers flooded Men's Health magazine, where his cartoon appeared, and he lost that outlet. His work used to appear frequently in the political cartoon section of The New York Times Week In Review, but that was stopped. In the end, Rall figures the backlash cost him $40,000 to $50,000 in business."
Reisman added that Coulter "is hardly being condemned by the more prominent righties like Sean Hannity. On the contrary, Hannity has promoted Coulter's book on his Web site. She's gotten a million dollars and counting in free publicity. Hannity, who once called Rall 'mean, cruel, and thoughtless,' evidently feels that Coulter by contrast is a deep thinker who fairly examines the facts and then delivers the truth as she sees it with tender loving care."
Coulter's controversial comment about Murtha came after she was asked at the RightWingNews site to comment on the ex-Marine who now opposes the Iraq War. She said of Murtha: "The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'" This is a term describing soldiers killing their own officers, originally in Vietnam.
On that site on Friday, the interviewer John Hawkins commented: "Although, I wouldn't have phrased that like Ann did, I would say in her defense that in that quote she didn't say that she wanted to kill Murtha, she'd didn't say that she thought he should be killed, and she didn't say that she thought Murtha should have been fragged. Is that hair splitting?"
The Universal columnist has also "joked" about killing other people, including Arabs, Muslims, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and suggested that blowing up The New York Times building might be a good idea, especially if the reporters and editors were still inside.
Dave Astor and Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com)
#1. Pelosi and Reid REPEAT THE AWFUL KERRY CAMPAIGN of 2006...
#2. Joe Conason: Dems OWE IT TO THEIR VOTERS to FIGHT BACK vs Repub. SMEAR tactics!
#3. Karl Rove accuses Democrats of being "the party of ANGER and HATRED"
#4. Ann Coulter doesn't loose A SINGLE media outlet despite her continuing, on-going calls for the MURDER of people in America and across the world.
#1. Here Senator Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi offer up their GAME-PLAN for election 2006:
"A New Direction."
http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/pdf/NewDirection.pdf
___________________________
We hate to be critical here C-dems.blgspt.com, but "NEW DIRECTION" sounds as PATHETIC and TEPID as John Kerry's 2004 mantra, "Time for a Change."
BY COMPARISON, Democrats, do YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT KARL ROVE IS PUSHING for the GOP's GAME PLAN in 2006...??
well, that's easy... here it is:
<< "...the LEFT of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY has served as a way to MOBILIZE HATE and ANGER... HATE and ANGER, first and foremost, at this president and conservatives." >>
THAT is KARL ROVE SPEAKING on how Republicans are going to win midterm election 2006 - portray the DEMOCRATS as the party of "HATE and ANGER" !!
Did you get that, Senator Reid and Rep. Pelosi?
YOU are talking the generic and fuzzy "NEW DIRECTION!", while Karl Rove is accusing Democrats of "HATE and ANGER"!!
Once again, the basic formula is: IF the American people see the Democrats as AFRAID to CONFRONT the LIES of Karl Rove, the Republican Party, and the Bush White House, then voters will see the Democrats as BEING AFRAID... and thereby NOT WORTHY of WINNING ELECTIONS that control the destiny of America in dangerous times.
Al Gore REFUSED to SPEAK OUT for children of poverty and low-income families TOSSED OFF OF pre-school, after-school, and health-care programs by Gov. Bush's cruel budget-slashings, and as a result the Republicans WERE ABLE TO portray Gore as wishy-washy and vacillating, if not an outright liar.
Today in 2006 the stakes are far higher - the Democrats no longer control the Senate or White House (as they did in 2000), and the Repub. Party has MONOPOLY CONTROL OF ALL BRANCHES OF US GOVERNMENT - House, White House, Senate, Supreme Court, federal judiciary, all agencies of government, control of corporate America (which underwrites the Republican party), and even control of the "4th Estate."
NO better proof of this last element is needed - that Republicans CONTROL of the press/media, aka "4th estate" - than that KARL ROVE portrays the DEMOCRATS as "the party of HATE and ANGER," while it is ANN COULTER who is out there on NBC, Fox 'news', and DOZENS of other "major media outlets," PROMOTING THE HATRED OF Democrats and 'liberals,' and even calling for the "fragging" (murder by hand-grenade of men on one's own side) of Representative John Murtha, and it was Ann Coulter who said that Tim McVeigh "SHOULD HAVE" bombed the New York Times building while he was bombing the Oklahoma government building.
<< The Universal columnist [Ann Coulter] has also "joked" about killing other people, including Arabs, Muslims, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and suggested that blowing up The New York Times building might be a good idea, especially if the reporters and editors were still inside. >>
Of course, the worst part about all this is that "HATE and ANGER" **DEFINES** the Karl Rove/Bush/Republican agenda.
And it isn't just "HATE and ANGER" where Karl Rove SUCCEEDS in INVERTING (flipping) the truth: Rove is also in the process of portraying spendthrift TAX-CUTS-in-time-of-war George W. Bush as holding the line against UNNECESSARY SPENDING." !!!!!!!
This is a REPEAT of the 2000 campaign, where Al Gore REFUSED TO CONFRONT the social-slashing programs of Texas Governor George W. Bush, while Bush funnelled huge TAX CUTS to Texas' wealthiest corporations, BANKRUPTING the Texas state budget and trashing former Governor Ann Richards Texas state budget surplus in the process.
Karl Rove:
<< And [Rove] took on the "big spenders" of both parties, while arguing for the Line Item Veto:
"In reality, there are 3 parties in Congress: Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators. And guess what? The Republicans and Democrats are in a minority. So you need to have this important and executive tool that allows a President to shine a bright light on some unnecessary spending and then to have Congress vote up or down as to whether or not to override his veto." >>
IF THE DEMOCRATS CAN NOT ANSWER, and CONFRONT, the SMEAR and FEAR tactics of Karl Rove, George W. Bush and the Republican Party, AMERICAN VOTERS WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE *AFRAID*, and thereby NOT DESERVING OF NATIONAL LEADERSHIP in perilous times.
==========================================================
#2.
Fear and smear
The GOP is back to its old Rove tricks, attacking Democrats as unpatriotic cowards. If only they could lead as well as they demagogue.
By Joe Conason
Jun. 16, 2006
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/06/16/iraq_war/
| At last we know what Republicans mean when they talk about a "plan for victory" in Iraq. They still have no real plan to achieve victory in Iraq itself, where civil conflict worsens, casualties continually rise, and even the elimination of the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq seems unlikely to reduce the carnage. They have no plan to extricate our troops or even to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. But they do have a plan to win a partisan victory in the congressional midterm elections -- by using the Iraq war to divide this country.
That should come as no surprise, however, since Republicans have employed the same cynical strategy to prevail over Democrats in the past two election cycles.
Newly released from the prospect of a criminal indictment, White House advisor Karl Rove immediately resumed his old habits. The "architect," as the president has called him, is following the political blueprint for the 2002 and 2004 elections: Denigrate the opposition as weak and irresolute; portray the Republican Party as the bulwark against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11; and impugn the character of Democratic critics, especially those who have served their country in combat.
As he has done in years past, Rove frankly explained his approach in a speech to members of his party. Addressing the New Hampshire Republican Party Monday, he seized the opportunity to imply that Sen. John Kerry and Rep. John Murtha -- both of whom, unlike Rove, volunteered to serve in Vietnam -- are cowards who favor "cutting and running." Suggesting that their dissent from the White House line on Iraq proves that they are unreliable, he said: "They may be with you for the first shots. But they're not going ... to be with you for the tough battles."
The second "tell" regarding Rove's strategy surfaced this week in a "confidential" memo issued by House Majority Leader John Boehner in anticipation of Thursday's debate over a phony House resolution on the war. Boehner instructed his minions to pretend that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the same, to insist that 9/11 made war in Iraq unavoidable and to rewrite the history of the past five years to smear the Democrats as "irresolute" and "wavering."
The truth, of course, is quite different. The Democrats in Congress gave the president total support in the aftermath of 9/11, with an authorization to use military force against the nation's enemies and a moratorium on partisan criticism. They have continued to offer unstinting support for the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, even though the White House has botched that effort, too.
And as Bush prepared for war against Iraq, the Democratic leadership went along with his administration's misleading insistence on the apocalyptic danger posed by Saddam Hussein. Only many months later, when the administration's dishonesty and incompetence were proved beyond doubt, did Democrats begin to question the administration's disastrous policy.
Rove's aggressive tactics have served his party well in two previous national elections, but he faces a different order of battle this year. Despite the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the president's strange six-hour visit to Baghdad, Americans remain skeptical at best about the war -- and Bush himself is still mired in awful poll ratings. That may have something to do with the reality of the war, which is not susceptible to partisan spin or media manipulation.
Despite the longing of the mainstream media for a Bush rebound -- and despite the bluster of Rove and the Republican congressional leadership -- the facts on the ground in Iraq are not comforting. The death of Zarqawi and the president's quick conclave with the Iraqi cabinet were not the only landmarks of his "good week" -- nor even necessarily the most significant.
The number of American dead in the war has reached 2,500, and the cost to American taxpayers has passed $320 billion. Take those numbers and add to them the tens of thousands of young wounded soldiers whose lives have been ruined, and the tens of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis. Then try to measure the incalculable damage to American prestige in the world inflicted by the scandalous and stupid mismanagement of the occupation.
That is the price we have paid so far for a war with no end in sight and no exit strategy -- a war that will conclude, at best, with an Iraq ruled by Islamic law and allied with the hostile regime in neighboring Iran and, at worst, with a civil war that threatens to plunge the entire Middle East into chaos. That is the price we have paid for the head of Zarqawi, who could have been wiped out with his little band of terrorists three years ago.
That will be the price we pay to ensure a Republican "victory" next November -- unless Americans act on their growing intuition about these demagogues, who are so brilliant at campaigning and so incapable of governing.
____________________________________________________
#3.
Karl Rove Gives Exclusive Interview to New Hampshire Activist Network
June 16, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060616/pl_usnw/karl_rove_gives_exclusive_interview_to_new_hampshire_activist_network108_xml
To: National Desk, Political Reporter
MANCHESTER, N.H., June 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Leading up to his appearance at the New Hampshire Republican State Committee's annual dinner, Karl Rove granted an exclusive interview to VictoryNH.com -- New Hampshire's first citizen activist network - - running the gamut from tax, energy and immigration policy to earmark reform and New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary.
Co-founded by Ambassador Joseph Petrone and Manchester activist Harry Levine, Victory NH's mission is to use the power of New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary to bring together political thinkers and policy makers to shape the 2008 presidential debate.
"In a time of increasing discord in Washington, we saw Mr. Rove's visit as the perfect opportunity to give the President's positions a fair, unfiltered hearing before the citizen activists who have long begun the process of driving the national debate," Levine said.
In a wide-ranging interview, Rove detailed the positive impact of the President's tax cuts, outlined the Advanced Energy Initiative and spoke favorably of Congressman Mike Pence's Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act.
Additionally, Rove answered the attacks from the left-wing blogosphere:
"The Internet for the Left of the Democratic Party has served as a way to mobilize hate and anger -- hate and anger, first and foremost, at this President and Conservatives, but then also at people within their own party whom they consider to be less than completely loyal to this very narrow, very out-of-the-mainstream, very far Left-wing ideology that they tend to represent."
And took on the "big spenders" of both parties, while arguing for the Line Item Veto:
"In reality, there are 3 parties in Congress: Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators. And guess what? The Republicans and Democrats are in a minority. So you need to have this important and executive tool that allows a President to shine a bright light on some unnecessary spending and then to have Congress vote up or down as to whether or not to override his veto."
-----
Victory NH [a Republican campaign operation - ed] began as a grassroots Internet effort led by Ambassador Joseph Petrone. Since its founding in 2004, it has grown into a network of activist groups across New Hampshire, working together to defend the principles and policies of lower taxes, smaller government, a strong national defense and a free- enterprise system; as well as protecting New Hampshire's first- in-the-nation primary.
===========================================
#4.
Newspaper Clients, and Syndicate, Stick With Coulter
By Dave Astor and Greg Mitchell
Published: June 16, 2006
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002689746
NEW YORK Ann Coulter hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients, or the support of her syndicate, Universal Press Syndicate, despite her nasty remarks in her new book about 9/11 widows and her comment in an online interview implying that, perhaps, U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) should be "fragged."
A Universal spokesman said there were no discussions going on there about dropping the columnist.
Why is Coulter keeping all her subscribers? "Ann's client newspapers stick with her because she has a loyal fan base of conservative readers who look forward to reading her columns in their local newspapers," Universal Director of Communications Kathie Kerr said in a statement, after being queried today by E&P.
Kerr added that the syndicate "represents a full spectrum of editorial viewpoints, from very conservative to very liberal writers and cartoonists. Many people enjoy Ann's writing -- after all, her latest book did go to No. 1 on the best seller on Amazon within 48 hours of its publication."
In a phone interview, asked if Coulter's recent remarks went beyond political views to appalling personal remarks or hate speech, Kerr replied: "We've never felt that it is a syndicate's job to censor commentary. It is the nature of commentary that it is to inflame." She said they "leave it to editors" to run or hold certain columns or cartoons, but they are not allowed to edit them.
Editors, she pointed out, have chosen not to run certain "Doonesbury" or "Boondocks" cartoons, which come from the liberal side of the spectrum. Asked if any paper had ever decided not to run a conservative column or cartoon, she said, "If it's happened, we don't know about it."
Kerr said the syndicate signs up the creators and then "we leave it up to the newspaper." Asked several times if the syndicate took ultimate responsibility for choosing its clients and distributing their work -- or if there was any line Coulter might cross -- she repeatedly said, "It is not our job to censor."
Coulter's remarks in recent days that have stirred outrage did not come from a column. Kerr said the syndicate is only concerned about "what is in the columns that we distribute."
In her latest column today, Coulter writes, among other things, " that two facts are now universally accepted -- liberals are godless and Hillary's husband is a rapist."
The huge book sales for Coulter have come after a massive publicity drive during which, among other things, she called certain 9/11 widows "witches" who have been "enjoying" their husbands' deaths. She also said that their husbands were likely going to divorce them anyway.
Another Universal creator, liberal editorial cartoonist Ted Rall, also satirized some 9/11 widows in a 2002 drawing -- but, in his case, was hurt financially. Rall, who called Coulter's comments "a lot meaner" than his cartoon, noted that he lost WashingtonPost.com as a client.
And, in a Tuesday column linked on Rall's blog, Phil Reisman of The Journal News in White Plains, N.Y., discussed other fallout from that 2002 cartoon: "Rall was effectively roasted by the conservatives. For example, right-wing bloggers flooded Men's Health magazine, where his cartoon appeared, and he lost that outlet. His work used to appear frequently in the political cartoon section of The New York Times Week In Review, but that was stopped. In the end, Rall figures the backlash cost him $40,000 to $50,000 in business."
Reisman added that Coulter "is hardly being condemned by the more prominent righties like Sean Hannity. On the contrary, Hannity has promoted Coulter's book on his Web site. She's gotten a million dollars and counting in free publicity. Hannity, who once called Rall 'mean, cruel, and thoughtless,' evidently feels that Coulter by contrast is a deep thinker who fairly examines the facts and then delivers the truth as she sees it with tender loving care."
Coulter's controversial comment about Murtha came after she was asked at the RightWingNews site to comment on the ex-Marine who now opposes the Iraq War. She said of Murtha: "The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'" This is a term describing soldiers killing their own officers, originally in Vietnam.
On that site on Friday, the interviewer John Hawkins commented: "Although, I wouldn't have phrased that like Ann did, I would say in her defense that in that quote she didn't say that she wanted to kill Murtha, she'd didn't say that she thought he should be killed, and she didn't say that she thought Murtha should have been fragged. Is that hair splitting?"
The Universal columnist has also "joked" about killing other people, including Arabs, Muslims, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, and suggested that blowing up The New York Times building might be a good idea, especially if the reporters and editors were still inside.
Dave Astor and Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com)
posted by verifi at 3:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home