Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>><snipped a whole bunch of boring BS - except to Joe and I>
>
>
> LOL!
>
>
>>>I see what you mean. Talk about going off the deep end... But
>>>it's always a pleasure.
>>>
>>>So what do you think about this CIA leak stuff? This morning I
>>>read that it now involves Cheney's aide or something.
>>
>>I haven't followed it too closely. It looks to me like a big game
>>of gotcha by both sides. Also, I think the press is stretching it
>>out because there's nothing better to report. I don't think Rove
>>broke the law and I've read where her cover was blown way before he
>>talked to anyone in the press. It apparently was common knowledge
>>that shew worked for the CIA. Plus her husband campaigned for Kerry
>>and thought he might get a Cabinet or high level government position
>>if he won so, IMO, his motives are suspect.
>>
>>Rove has driven a stake into the Democrat's heart in the 2000, 2002
>>and 2004 elections and they want nothing more than to see head head
>>on a platter or at least drag him through the mud a little. I think
>>the whole affair will not amount to much and as soon as Bush
>>nominates a replacement for Sandra it will probably be forgotten.
>
>
> I heard he's supposed to be on TV tonight to make some kind of
> announcement.
>
> From what I've heard and read about Rove, he's nothing short of
> brilliant. Apparently, he's been setting up Bush's presidency since
> he was governor back in Texas.

He actually met W. in the early 1970's. He was instrumental in Bush
winning the Texas governorship. He has also done huge work in
organizing the Repubs in ways that no one has done before. Much of the
grass roots efforts has been orchestrated by him. The last election was
a show of local political strength by both sides. I really think the
Dems thought they had it won based on their local organization. The
trouble is they totally underestimated the success of the Repubs at the
same level. Organizations like Moveon.org were hiring people to get the
vote out an were paying for voter registration. The Republicans used
volunteers to do the same and they were motivated for the right reasons
and not by money. Consequently they did a better job of turning out the
vote. I think most people in the country thought that if the Dems got
more than 55 million votes they would win. Who would have thought Bush
would get way over 60 million, I certainly didn't think it was possible.

IMO, the Repubs real test will be the 2006 elections. If they make more
gains in the House and Senate it will be a remarkable achievement. No
administration has increased seats for their party in Congress for four
straight elections. Actually, I don't think it has been done for three
consecutive elections. If they do I think it is a clear sign to the
Dems that they had better do some real deep soul searching and start
jettisoning people like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, Jesse
Jackson, Barbara Boxer etc. Hillary Clinton is trying so hard to look
conservative it makes me laugh. It is the only chance she has to win.
If any liberal can pull off looking like Zell Miller it would be her.

>>Repubs and Dems are always looking for a way to sling mud at each
>>other and I think this is just the latest installment. It seems
>>that most all the talking heads think this won't amount to much and
>>don't think Rove broke any laws. Then again I'm sure many thought
>>the same after the Watergate break-in.
>
>
> That's pretty much what I'm thinking as well. More of the SOS...

I think the Dems are looking for any way possible to slow Bush down on
his agenda. Same goes for stopping any conservative Supreme Court
nominees. They are trying the same tactics that Newt used only they
aren't nearly as good at it. Then again, I never underestimate the
Repubs ability to shoot themselves in the foot.