Wesley Clark on Rove: "You gotta give the devil his due." eff you man.... eff you

There's another thread on this "surrogacy" on Dan Abrams' Verdict today, but I want to stress that these were his words to justify and attempt to authenticate Hillary's citation in her letter to the SDs of Rove's electoral college maps as PRIMARY EVIDENCE for her being the stronger candidate:

Q: "General Clark, Karl Rove as the source of independent analysis?!" (italicized parts with ironic laughing)
A: "Well you know Dan he's, he proved he knows what he's talking about When it comes to getting poleple elected---he did it twice---"
Q: "---except in 2006 right? ... (Abrams chuckling)
A: "Well he did for GWB twice, and uh, you know he's a pretty shrewd analyst; a lot of us don't like what he did in the White House, and maybe some of it was even illegal, but you gotta give the devil his due.
Q: "But isn't there some legitimacy to the claim that Karl Rove may have a stake in this and that the longer this goes, the better it is for the Republicans and as a result he wants to keep pushing the Hillary argument?"
A: "I think that the superdelegates have to look at all the facts and all of the analysis:they have to see through whatever motives various sources may have. You know one thing I learned running for President is that just about every piece of advice you get is colored by someone's motives in giving it to you. There's no such thing as objectivity in this realm."

TOTAL Red Herrings to both of Dan Abram's not only valid but conclusive questions. Notice he doesn't actually answer either one of them. Not a single word on the 2006 election, but rather a hedged amplification of his own claim. Ignore counter-evidence, and build your argument on a rotting foundation. Get on with your bad self Wesley.

Then the second question on Rove's stake. No, don't address the potentiality of tampered, doctored, or favored evidence from Rove. Instead, he digresses to a classical Argumentum ad Ignoratiam, argument to ignorance, by saying there is no objectivity he's saying something's true just because you can't prove it false (or vice verse). Pure horse shit. Analogous examples are saying that ghost exist because you can't prove they don't, or that global warming isn't happening because no one has proved conclusively that it's happening.

All this to authenticate Rove no less... :puke:

.

I got your objective right here Wessy boy: a clinched majority of pledged delegates, 46 supers away from a clinched majority of total delegates (which will be in BO's pocket THE MOMENT this is wrapped up on Tuesday), not to mention a majority of the popular vote, of states, of superdelegates, ... all of this with or without Michigan and Florida.

.


I agree with the other OP today. Bad bad bad bad bad bad bad idea to support somebody for VP who on the one hand not only pulls but also fallaciously justifies these kind of Rovian tactics, and who on the other is doing so in a surrogacy geared propagandistically to enable a failed nominee who in her every machination is proving that her purpose is to usurp all the rules, conventions, pledges, votes, solidarity in the party, and plain good faith. That last part is my interpretation (one shared by many other objective analysts; the first part is simple raw pure fact.

Fuck Wesley Clark. He doesn't deserve to be on Obama's long list, let alone short list. nor any role in this administration. The above Rovian manipulation (Mr. "You may end up with a different math, but you're entitled to your math. I'm entitled to the math. ) is right at the root of what Barack is trying to change in Washington.

a sow's ear. Only in Orwellian rove, or hilary land does Gen Clark prop up karl maddog rove.

Look at what she does to surrogates.

The Wes Clark appeal.

:shrug:

You know, that really awful person who oversaw the firings of attorneys across the country who weren't toeing the party line? That guy involved in the framing and jailing of Don Siegelman? That guy who has used the lowest possible tactics to get his candidates into office?

If you can't see this, I don't know what to say.

What Karl Rove did, he did well. It may have been unfortunate, immoral and sleezy, but he did it well.

That's all Clark's saying.

Geez, people, are you guys too edgy or what?

I'm so glad I don't have a candidate right now. I couldn't care less who wins the nomination.

Just curious.

It pains me to see Clark pimping endlessly for Clinton, but I fail to see how a blunt comment about Karl Rove (after all he did craft two Bush "wins") somehow changes who he is. He's out there parroting increasingly insane Clinton talking points, which is a new low for him, but not a new thing in politics.

but Raygun DID shape the US into a vastly different place than it was. Much worse place.

Gawd I love reality especially when dealing with the political world.

and like his bed mates, has bought into the inside the beltway bullshit that we'd all like to get rid of.

I never supported him, never will.

I thought he was terrible on the campaign trail in 2004, and never once saw him as Presidential. I just don't think he has what it takes to be President.

For the same reason, I've never agreed that he should be Obama's VP choice.

I admire the way he handled things when he was in command in Kosovo. It was tactically and strategically brilliant, and he is an extremely well educated man.

Bottom line, though...call me crazy, but I've never been able to forget that he used to be a Republican.

-chef-

.

Rove got a dumb mother fucker elected twice

"you gotta give the devil his due"

he was great at what he did, now he can be great behind bars

the first time. Diebold the second time. It had nothing to do with getting "elected". I suppose accomplishing the desires of a police state will be admirable as well.

he did it by voter fraud. period. all the more rendering bunk whatever Wess or Hillary have to say along those lines....

General.

. . .thanks for breaking down Clark's skewed talking points for the Clintons, mythyc.

And I'm saying this as a former Clark 2004 supporter/delegate. . .yuuuuuuck, what a crock of BatSqueeze from this otherwise man of reason. . .

Disillusioned I am big time. . .and I will not forget Clark's break from CONSCIENCE ALL to help keep afloat the Ship of Clintons. . .

Let him sink with their ship. . .over. and. out. with. Clark. for. anything. PERIOD.

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:

It's very bizarre. I don't know why her supporters are standing for it. If anyone else had done that, her supporters would be up in arms, because it's just so....inappropriate, to put it mildly. Plus, it's incorrect to cite Rove's "the" math.

By hook or by crook, ruthless, nefarious and illegal, he won the highest office in the land for his guy, twice. And though his politics have played themselves out, he was the master of the game for a long time. Of course you give the devil his due. I have no problem with that statement.

I support Barack Obama but you'll never hear me motherfuck Clark because he's right 95% of the time. I wish he was the nominee.

at least you recognize the truth of the matter.

Its HORRIBLE that so many so-called democrats can't do so; Wes Clark is indeed right 95% of the time, and the fools here want to much to 'think' that anything relating to hrc is bad that HE must be, too. OMG, what have 'we' come to?

not. It's a difference of opinion..Hello.

for the GOP.

I don't get what's so wrong with Clark's statement. Yes, Rove is an evil person, but he was very successful in what he did, and I have no doubt that he is very intelligent. Which doesn't mean that he's not an ass! By the way, hello MrSlayer from a fellow Clarkie :hi:

Whether or not people want to believe it, Clark's got a point.

He's not on Obama's list for VP.

I just can't hold back any longer....

"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"
"FUCK YOU, WES CLARK!"


Damn, that felt good.

And to think, I once thought he'd make an okay President.

not "give him his due."

I saw him on abrams, heard him say that...what a disappointment he turned out to be. :-(

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:shrug:

have to say about this....

to convince Democratic SDs that she should be their nominee? I can't stop laughing. :rofl:

Rove MAY HAVE done illegal things in the Whitehouse, but he knows how to get people elected and THAT'S GOOD FOR US!!!

Rove learned from the CREEPS in the Nixon campaign, and went on cheating his way to victory w bu$h:

Preserving Democracy:
What Went Wrong in Ohio
Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff

Wednesday 05 January 2005

Executive Summary



First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly minority and Democratic voters:

The misallocation of voting machines led to unprecedented long lines that disenfranchised scores, if not hundreds of thousands, of predominantly minority and Democratic voters. This was illustrated by the fact that the Washington Post reported that in Franklin County, "27 of the 30 wards with the most machines per registered voter showed majorities for Bush. At the other end of the spectrum, six of the seven wards with the fewest machines delivered large margins for Kerry." (See Powell and Slevin, supra). Among other things, the conscious failure to provide sufficient voting machinery violates the Ohio Revised Code which requires the Boards of Elections to "provide adequate facilities at each polling place for conducting the election."

Mr. Blackwell's decision to restrict provisional ballots resulted in the disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, again predominantly minority and Democratic voters. Mr. Blackwell's decision departed from past Ohio law on provisional ballots, and there is no evidence that a broader construction would have led to any significant disruption at the polling places, and did not do so in other states.

Mr. Blackwell's widely reviled decision to reject voter registration applications based on paper weight may have resulted in thousands of new voters not being registered in time for the 2004 election.
The Ohio Republican Party's decision to engage in preelection "caging" tactics, selectively targeting 35,000 predominantly minority voters for intimidation had a negative impact on voter turnout. The Third Circuit found these activities to be illegal and in direct violation of consent decrees barring the Republican Party from targeting minority voters for poll challenges.

The Ohio Republican Party's decision to utilize thousands of partisan challengers concentrated in minority and Democratic areas likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of legal voters, who were not only intimidated, but became discouraged by the long lines. Shockingly, these disruptions were publicly predicted and acknowledged by Republican officials: Mark Weaver, a lawyer for the Ohio Republican Party, admitted the challenges "can't help but create chaos, longer lines and frustration."

Mr. Blackwell's decision to prevent voters who requested absentee ballots but did not receive them on a timely basis from being able to receive provisional ballots 6 likely disenfranchised thousands, if not tens of thousands, of voters, particularly seniors. A federal court found Mr. Blackwell's order to be illegal and in violation of HAVA.

Second, on election day, there were numerous unexplained anomalies and irregularities involving hundreds of thousands of votes that have yet to be accounted for:

There were widespread instances of intimidation and misinformation in violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection, Due Process and the Ohio right to vote. Mr. Blackwell's apparent failure to institute a single investigation into these many serious allegations represents a violation of his statutory duty under Ohio law to investigate election irregularities.

We learned of improper purging and other registration errors by election officials that likely disenfranchised tens of thousands of voters statewide. The Greater Cleveland Voter Registration Coalition projects that in Cuyahoga County alone over 10,000 Ohio citizens lost their right to vote as a result of official registration errors.

There were 93,000 spoiled ballots where no vote was cast for president, the vast majority of which have yet to be inspected. The problem was particularly acute in two precincts in Montgomery County which had an undervote rate of over 25% each - accounting for nearly 6,000 voters who stood in line to vote, but purportedly declined to vote for president.

There were numerous, significant unexplained irregularities in other counties throughout the state: (i) in Mahoning county at least 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of Kerry votes to the Bush column; (ii) Warren County locked out public observers from vote counting citing an FBI warning about a potential terrorist threat, yet the FBI states that it issued no such warning; (iii) the voting records of Perry county show significantly more votes than voters in some precincts, significantly less ballots than voters in other precincts, and voters casting more than one ballot; (iv) in Butler county a down ballot and underfunded Democratic State Supreme Court candidate implausibly received more votes than the best funded Democratic Presidential candidate in history; (v) in Cuyahoga county, poll worker error may have led to little known thirdparty candidates receiving twenty times more votes than such candidates had ever received in otherwise reliably Democratic leaning areas; (vi) in Miami county, voter turnout was an improbable and highly suspect 98.55 percent, and after 100 percent of the precincts were reported, an additional 19,000 extra votes were recorded for President Bush.

Third, in the post-election period we learned of numerous irregularities in tallying provisional ballots and conducting and completing the recount that disenfanchised thousands of voters and call the entire recount procedure into question (as of this date the recount is still not complete):

Mr. Blackwell's failure to articulate clear and consistent standards for the counting of provisional ballots resulted in the loss of thousands of predominantly minority votes. In Cuyahoga County alone, the lack of guidance and the ultimate narrow and arbitrary review standards significantly contributed to the fact that 8,099 out of 24,472 provisional ballots were ruled invalid, the highest proportion in the state.

Mr. Blackwell's failure to issue specific standards for the recount contributed to a lack of uniformity in violation of both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clauses. We found innumerable irregularities in the recount in violation of Ohio law, including (i) counties which did not randomly select the precinct samples; (ii) counties which did not conduct a full hand court after the 3% hand and machine counts did not match; (iii) counties which allowed for irregular marking of ballots and failed to secure and store ballots and machinery; and (iv) counties which prevented witnesses for candidates from observing the various aspects of the recount.

The voting computer company Triad has essentially admitted that it engaged in a course of behavior during the recount in numerous counties to provide "cheat sheets" to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets informed election officials how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law.

-SNIP
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

I had a big problem with his links to the war school. I didn't trust Hillary even then and felt Clark was a pawn in her game. They sure proved me wrong. :sarcasm:

I was a Deaniac and we and the Clarkies were mortal enemies more than any other candidates.
We dug up a bunch of incriminating evidence on Clark. I never speak of it any more.

"a lot of us don't like what he did in the White House, and maybe some of it was even illegal"
Oh yeah, that's *really* praising Rove...
:eyes:
Get yourself some Shakespeare.

Rove is some political genius. He's a pedestrian little man, with a history marked by a honking big failure.

You gotta give those Devils their due.

all in one post.

And to think some might question your loyalties...

Well done.

How Ro... um, Obama of you.

delusional nonsense from you. how predictable.

He will give the Devil his due
Meaning

Literally, pay the devil what you owe him. Used figuratively to mean 'give back what you owe', either money or favours.

Origin

From Shakespeare's Henry IV Part 1:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/176900.html

Just how many souls do you think her soul is worth, mate?

No one dare say anything positive about a Clinton supporter because they know the hammer of the Obama thugs on DU will come down on them.

This is an example of twisting and distorting a statement's meaning so they can trash someone that has a tie to Clinton. And every one of the Obama supporters who post on this thread must agree with the bizarre assessment of Clark's statement.

Parroting the o-mail proudly, like they actually had an original thought themselves.

actually defended Clinton and suggested that the idea that Clinton meant assassination of Obama was an unreasonable interpretation.

She was hammered by the Obama thugs until she gave in and recanted her original reaction.

Variety of thoughts are NOT allowed on DU! Democracy swirls down the porcelain bowl.

There is no endorsement of values implicit in that phrase. There are many brilliant people who I wish weren't as good at the games they play than they are. Putin is brilliant over there in Russia but I have no desire to look deeply into his eyes. Still, he bulldozed that nation into compliance with his rule. Putin is a skilled political tactician. He is also anti-Democratic. Those qualities do not contradict.

It was Rove's idea for Bush to "fly over" the New Orleans disaster after Hurricane Katrina, part of a bumbling response, which led to his plummeting approval ratings he has never recovered from. He was one of Bush's chief advisors in his second term, a term we can all agree was an abject failure. And, it goes without saying that Karl Rove cheated to get Bush re-elected. They quite literally lied, cheated, and stole to take it from Kerry, who I believe, had it been a free and fair election, would have won Ohio, and therefore the presidency. So, honestly, I do not think Karl Rove is a genius or clever; it is only that he lacks any sense of right and wrong, and by cheating he won a few elections. But the massive corruption was uncovered, and 2006 is a milestone for Democrats -- I think, unless Dems royally screw up -- that we have regained our majority in Congress, and may actually be able to hold that majority for many years to come.

The presidency is not as consistent as it relies on personality issues, so I think the jury is out for 2008 (and Hillary would have been just as vulnerable if not more than Obama -- the GOP has held its fire on her since they calculated she would have no chance to win the nomination), but that has more to do with an existing right wing noise machine (that pre-dates Rove), and an electorate that does not read enough and watches too much TV. Yes, I know my last statement sounds "elitist" but reading is the real antidote to boneheaded propaganda.

He makes my skin crawl, but I recognize his shrewd ability to gain/restore power for his country.

Going back in time, many WWI American fighter pilots admired the Red Baron for his skills and daring, not for the end result of those skills. To this day the Red Baron inspires a sense of awe amongst aviators.

shame he hitched his wagon to the wrong horse and didn't have the sense to turn around before he got to the cliff.

and sadly, I now must add Wes Clark to teh list of those I've lost respect for.

He's on video praising them in 2003!

He will never be on our ticket.

He voted for Gore. He voted for Bill Clinton twice. The video you are talking about did not praise Bush, and it was from early 2001, not 2003. It contained a few good wishes for people he knew in the new administration that was recently installed. It was no more gushing in praise than things Al Gore said himself.

Slamming Clark for stating Rove may have some skill?
Gee, that's almost as bad as someone saying Reagan had some political skill...like Obama did months ago.

Clark is surrogate for the Clinton campaign and not surprisingly will try and make the case for her. Note however he (unlike other Clinton surrogates) hasn't made a case against Obama. I still think he'll end up being in the Obama administration. He certainly should be.

shouldn't be elected dog catcher. That said, I just don't see anything Clark said, that would get me all fired up. Do you know what the phrase, "give the devil his due", means?

On top of that Clark readily admitted that Rove's comments are probably skewed by ulterior motives. I don't like that he supported Clinton, but I don't think he has said or done anything to dishonor himself, while pursuing that support.

There's nothing there. He's an opportunist.

Think hard for a second and try to think of a time that he did anything to protest the war... ever. He has been completely silent since 2004.

He was hoping he could ride Hillary's coattails to VP, and now the mask is starting to slip.

Ugh.

He got them put into office -- that's different. The "elections" were just a cover for a bloodless coup.

What you are saying is absurd.

You may hate Rove, but he is good at what he does - getting his candidates elected.

n/t

because we never learn...Clark was stating a fact...that you give the devil his due...Rove is good at what he does...and all of a sudden all this bullshit about Clark, comes flying out of the mouths of a bunch of people on DU...Clark worked his ass off for Kerry....he's doing the same thing for Clinton...Clark worked his ass off to get Democrats elected in 2006...yet he never gets any credit for the positive things he does, the money he raises, the support he gives fellow Democrats, AND VETERANS...the only time you see his name mentioned is when he said something that a certain number of people may NOT agree with...and then they have to espouse this "fuck you Clark" garbage, just to be saying something...instead of recognizing the effort the man has made for ALL Democrats since he got involved...and don't ever tell me he didn't speak out against the war in Iraq...that is pure unadulterated bullshit...and means some of you weren't listening real close.....shaking my head in disbelief....wb

Abrams last nite.

I thought he would've made a great VP pick to mollify the Hillbots and all of that - and who knows, maybe he'd be the guy if a deal is cut (and if Hillbot I wishes it to be so) - but it kind of snuffs that idea out.

These people aren't as emotional as this board. If Obama thinks Clark can beef up his FP resume and help him win, he'll choose him.

This isn't a game based on emotions!

I am so glad I don't have a candidate. You people have gone off the deep end!!

Clark is merely pointing out that Karl Rove is evil, but good at it. Who can deny that?

Are you people so wound up in emotions that you cannot see this statement for what it is: a factual assessment of all the evil Karl Rove successfully foisted on the American public.

That's it. That's all. Nothing more.

BTW, Texas Observer, Obama, given his lack of FP experience, would be a fool not to have Clark on his short list.

This is politics, you emotional children! If you really think grudges will be held against Clinton supporters by Obama or Obama supporters by Clinto when it comes time to play politics to beat the Republicans, then you obviously have never taken a serious, unemotional look at politics.

Contemplate this: think of who the past several presidential candidates picked as running mates (Bill Clinton NOT included) and tell me that most pairs didn't go after one another during the primaries. They did.

:*

Reagan allegedly hated George H.W. Bush, who called him every name in the book during the primaries and he picked him.

Kerry picked Edwards, and those two sparred often during the primaries.

And VP choices, aside... there is the whole slew of "also-rans" who support the nominee and hordes of the supporters of the "also-rans" who become members of the winner's administration.

Where people get that Clark's complimenting Rove or that Obama will harbor his supporting Clinton in the primaries against him should Obama need Clark as his Veep or in the cabinet is beyond me (or anyone else who's every looked objectively at politics).

:hi: