Rove: Why isn’t President Hopenchange denouncing Reid’s attack on Romney?

posted at 2:31 pm on August 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Good question.  I can think of three answers:

  • Obama and his campaign asked Reid to make the attacks in order to get the smear out without having Obama’s/Team Obama’s own fingerprints on it
  • Obama didn’t initiate it, but he’s comfortable with the smear and desperate to get some traction on Romney
  • Obama’s afraid to tell Reid to stop, and risk angering his class-warfare base

The last one is a little difficult to believe, especially with prominent progressives in the media scolding Harry Reid for his baseless attacks and ridiculous, changing explanation of his source(s).  Obama could use this as the nearly-proverbial “Sister Souljah” moment and recapture the high ground on Hope and Change by telling Reid publicly to either produce real evidence or stay out of the presidential race altogether.  If Option 3 is really the truth, then Obama’s silence on this issue is a damning indictment of his leadership in political reform.  And if it’s not, then Options 1 and 2 are even more damning of his leadership and promises of healing the partisan rancor in the nation.

Karl Rove tells Fox and Friends this morning that the President has to be assigned ultimate responsibility for Reid’s smear, especially given his silence on the issue:


Rove listed a website that anyone can visit to see the last 10 years of Mitt Romney’s financial records including how much he paid in taxes. Frustrated with the tactics of the Obama campaign, Rove said, “For the majority leader of the Senate of the United States to go out and say this is a sign of both the desperation of the Democrats and more important than that, the complete lack of character, the slime ball nature of the Senate majority leader. And Harry Reid ought to be disgusted and embarrassed and ashamed because he shamed the great institution that he claims to lead.”

Rove said that President Obama is held responsible for the quality of his campaign even if he’s not the one verbalizing these accusations. He continued, “I not only don’t see the president disavowing it, I see his closest political adviser joining in this shameful activity. So the president hurts himself by this. What happened to all those promises of elevating politics … this is personal, this is shameful, this is despicable, this is Chicago-style thugs.”

That seems like the answer to the question, doesn’t it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Oh, come on. It can’t be that terrible or the House would impeach Reid, obviously. In fact, Boehner may have been alerted that the accusation is true and that is why there is no impeachment. Certainly if Reid had said without any evidence that Romney is a Sandusky, impeachment would have taken place by now. Unless the Republicans are so terrified of their own shadows to the point of being paralyzed, you must assume the accusation is true.

Buddahpundit on August 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Article II, Section 2 only applies to the President, Vice-President and civil officers, which includes judges.

“The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Senators are not civil officers of the federal government and therefore are not subject to impeachment. Thus, the House doesn’t have the jurisdiction to impeach Harry Reid.

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 4:10 PM

The lsm has no problem with asking mitt to stop any conservative who makes outrageous comments

Double standard on display

He’ll get away with as usual

Infuriating

cmsinaz on August 4, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Why hasn’t every Democrat politician been forced to go on the record and comment on Obama’s “you didn’t build that” philosophy?

Buddahpundit on August 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM

From now on, the only thing outside of Chicago that should be ‘Chicago Style’ is hot dogs.

baldylox on August 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Senators are not civil officers of the federal government and therefore are not subject to impeachment. Thus, the House doesn’t have the jurisdiction to impeach Harry Reid.

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Sure they do. The House impeached Senator William Blount in 1798. If someone wants to make a jurisdiction argument, let them do it after the impeachment.

Buddahpundit on August 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM

“this is personal, this is shameful, this is despicable, this is”….coming from Karl Rove!
Mr. pot, say hello to Mrs. kettle.
Too funny.

greataunty on August 4, 2012 at 4:22 PM


this is personal, this is shameful, this is despicable, this is”….coming from Karl Rove!

veiled threat. they are getting ready to drop something on the President. just giving him a little time to say he’s sorry before they do. it’ll be a doozie…and probably true, too.

gracie on August 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Why hasn’t every Democrat politician been forced to go on the record and comment on Obama’s “you didn’t build that” philosophy?

Buddahpundit on August 4, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Because the MSM is in the Dems pocket, and has been for years.

Wethal on August 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Meanwhile, Obama makes his new voters pay for the right to vote for him :
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/04/465-for-Amnesty-Obama-makes-illegals-legal
Surprise :O

burrata on August 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Sure they do. The House impeached Senator William Blount in 1798. If someone wants to make a jurisdiction argument, let them do it after the impeachment.

Buddahpundit on August 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM

And, the Senate dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. You will notice that not a single Senator or Congressman has been impeached since. You will also note that there has never been any serious talk of impeaching a Senator or Congressman since either. Either chamber, however, can expel a member.

So, go ahead and impeach Reid in the House. It will be dismissed by the Senate and, even if they decided to take it, you would never get 67 votes to convict and remove him.

In the meantime, the country will be yelling, “It’s the economy, stupid!

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Chaos 2006-2012.

Please sir, can I have some more?

/Obama 2012

Forewarned.

Key West Reader on August 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Remember that it was Obama, who had said that at some point a person has “made enough.” Evidently, in Obama’s mind Romney has made more than enough, and even though Romney has paid more than enough in taxes, the Obama/Reid method of attack is to imply that Romney did not pay his “fair share.”

Reid has done quite a bit of damage to what remaining dignity there is in the Senate. His outrageous claims through the years demonstrate what a low life he is. That he couches his slanders in his soft undertaker’s “concerned” voice adds insult to the injuries that he has inflicted on our legislative system.

onlineanalyst on August 4, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Key West Reader on August 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

So good to see you KWR. I hope you are doing well. Many have been asking after you, particularly in the QOTD.

thatsafactjack on August 4, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Reid can say anything he wants on Senate Floor and get away with it – That’s one reason O campaign made him their mouthpiece. The other reason is that he’s a high profile Mormon. If you get two Mormons arguing with each other, their religion can be pointed out in articles when it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. See this recent article from The Hill – http://bit.ly/ORWy6Z . Why didn’t the article say Reid and Romney are two of the most high profiled white guys in national politics? It’s just as irrelevant.

Delta Tango on August 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM

gracie on August 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM

How many things do they have to drop on this president before people start to take note? How many books have to be published exposing him for the inexperienced fraud he is before the people will get wise and vote for someone else? Obama knows he’s safe, if anyone asks about any of his background they’re accused of being a bigot and the accusations are pooh poohed away as insignificant garbage.

scalleywag on August 4, 2012 at 5:02 PM

the Obama/Reid method of attack is to imply that Romney did not pay his “fair share.”

onlineanalyst on August 4, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I agree with everything else that you wrote in your post, but I take some issue with this. You are absolutely correct that this is part of their attack, but it is not all…at least, not as it applies to Harry Reid. He said:

“The word’s out that he hasn’t paid ANY taxes for 10 years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.”

He’s not saying that Romney failed to pay enough taxes or not his “fair share.” He is claiming that Romney hasn’t paid ANY taxes in the past 10 years, a claim that is demonstrably false on its face since we know that:

Romney paid $3,009,766 in Federal income taxes in 2010.

…and he paid $3,226,623 in Federal income taxes in 2011 and may have to pay more when his formal return is filed.

Also, the idea that an “investor” in Bain told him that Romney hasn’t paid ANY taxes in the last 10 years is preposterous. What investor is privy to the individual tax returns or lack thereof of a passive owner/investor in an investment firm, especially when the alleged tax evader hasn’t been involved in the management of the company for more than a decade?

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM

This guy I know, he flies down to DC @ once a month. To have sex with Harry Reid.

shanimal on August 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Obama could use this as the nearly-proverbial “Sister Souljah” moment and recapture the high ground on Hope and Change by telling Reid publicly to either produce real evidence or stay out of the presidential race altogether.

This has to be the funniest quote ever from Ed.

Uppereastside on August 4, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Nice shot of Reid. LOL!

Bmore on August 4, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Key West Reader on August 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

So good to see you KWR. I hope you are doing well. Many have been asking after you, particularly in the QOTD.

thatsafactjack on August 4, 2012 at 4:50 PM

A bazillion dittos.

arnold ziffel on August 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Harry Reid is a Mormon…
Is there ANY worse thing you can say to offend a lefty/commie? LOL

Strike Hornet on August 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Rove said …

Who the phuck cares what this hack thinks. Shut the phuck up and stop whining.

Uppereastside on August 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Key West Reader on August 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

We good?

Bmore on August 4, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Reid has been played. It wouldn’t be that hard, you know. He’s not very sharp.

scalleywag on August 4, 2012 at 5:32 PM

This has to be the funniest quote ever from Ed.

Uppereastside on August 4, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Nah, this pic of you and your mom is funnier.

arnold ziffel on August 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM

If I were Romney: pick a trusted, public person to see those elements of the tax returns and IRS transcripts to prove that taxes were paid, but disclose nothing else. They sign a nondisclosure agreement that they can only vouch for taxes being paid, but no the amounts. And do this asap – before this turns from the delightful agony of Obama’s truthful moment “You didn’t build that” to the offensive and deceitful smear of “You didn’t pay that.”

Make Reid put up or shut up.

beatcanvas on August 4, 2012 at 2:52 PM

A partial surrender? Wrong. That extends this non-story and hands democratics control of the narrative.

In any case, John McCain has already done that and stated that Governor Romney’s income taxes were in order.

slickwillie2001 on August 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Can our side quite the whining and complaining and pleading to Obama to stop the attacks and simply take our balls out of the jar and hit them back tenfold! This “Obama is a nice guy, but just in a little over his head” meme has got to stop. The tyrants on the left are deliberately destroying this country and it’s past time to break out the heavy ammo!

PaddyORyan on August 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM

This guy I know, he flies down to DC @ once a month. To have sex with Harry Reid.

shanimal on August 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM

that figures why his staff change his Depends twice a day these days, guess the boys he’s having sex with don’t like the stench of incontinence….

jimver on August 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM

This has to be the funniest quote ever from Ed.

Uppereastside on August 4, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Expert on funny quotes checks in.

So which one of your prominent Democrats will be “leaking’ Romney’s returns in October, or aren’t you privy to that info yet?

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM

When the so called haters of wealth see the amounts he pays. They will be thankful to have that teet to suck from. This as with everything leftists do will backfire on them. 0 is Done!

Bmore on August 4, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Key West Reader on August 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

You have been in my thoughts and prayers lately.

d1carter on August 4, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Rove said …

Who the phuck cares what this hack thinks. Shut the phuck up and stop whining.

Uppereastside on August 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Aww, poor baby is still smarting that Rove was never indicted for “leaking” the name of a CIA Desk Jockey. What’s so hilarious about that is that truthout.org has never retracted that Fake story by Jason Leopold claiming that he was indicted.

And what is so utterly hypocritical about that whole Fake Plame Scandal is that the Left had previous actively cheered the leaking of the names of hundreds of CIA agents by Phillip Agee and his believers. Some of those named were killed as a result.

Nope, no Double Standard there…

FAIL-

Del Dolemonte on August 4, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Awww….it is 0bama’s birthday….he’s been focused like a laser on his plans for his birthday and a round of golf…

ProfShadow on August 4, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Rove Reid said…

Who the phuck cares what this hack incontinent Depends poster boy thinks. Shut the phuck up and stop whining. oh, and be afraid, be veeery afraid :-)…President Kaka has an October surprise, he’s going to pull a…rabbit out of his dirty azzz :-)…

Uppereastside on August 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM

there, FIFY…

jimver on August 4, 2012 at 5:48 PM

What’s astonishing to me is that many of you think that this is some kind of revelation about how dirty the Demorats and their tactics are and that the public is going to wake up and see the light. The public doesn’t CARE! The ones that will vote for Obama will vote for him no matter what and the ones that despise him will either stay home or vote against him. The ones in the middle have a noticeable lack of ethics or concern for this kind of crap by Reid and think it’s business as usual. They do not remember GWB NOT doing this to Kerry or
Gore and they will not give Romney any credit for being a gentleman. I had a Gunnery Sargent in the USMC who taught us bar room survival and the technique was run if you had the opportunity. But if not grab the nearest bottle or chair and slam it over your attackers head. Use anything and everything at your disposal and kick his ass! Romney had better reach for the bottle soon or he is toast.

inspectorudy on August 4, 2012 at 6:06 PM

One more thing, this is not about Obama, we know what he is. This is about Romney and he had better man up and deal with Reid and his yellow minions in a way that leaves no doubt who is in charge.

inspectorudy on August 4, 2012 at 6:08 PM

And, the Senate dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. You will notice that not a single Senator or Congressman has been impeached since. You will also note that there has never been any serious talk of impeaching a Senator or Congressman since either. Either chamber, however, can expel a member.

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM

He was impeached and expelled on a 2/3 votes of the senate on the next day. That is the known history. If that ain’t impeachment and conviction, then let’s just make it happen to Reid and you can call it what you want. They may have known something about the intention of the Constitution at the time.

After he was expelled, the senate didn’t have jurisdiction to do anything else to him because he was no longer a senator. A different court would have tried him for his crimes, if he had been located.

Buddahpundit on August 4, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Romney had better reach for the bottle soon or he is toast.

inspectorudy on August 4, 2012 at 6:06 PM

inspectorudy on August 4, 2012 at 6:08 PM

I like your style. Now if only the Marvel of Massachusetts will heed his supporters advice.

arnold ziffel on August 4, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I did’t go thru all those files on the site Rive cited because I don’t care as much as the libs do.

But am I correct in thinking that the Dems only want the tax returns so they can nitpick individual entries and try and wrap Romney up tryong to answer stupid questions?

I guess I don’t understand why Romney doesn’t indicate the dates the IRS accepted his past years returns and that until the IRS indicates a problem and/or calls for an audit the returns should be considered as proof he has met his tax obligation.

katiejane on August 4, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Can our side quite the whining and complaining and pleading to Obama to stop the attacks and simply take our balls out of the jar and hit them back tenfold! This “Obama is a nice guy, but just in a little over his head” meme has got to stop. The tyrants on the left are deliberately destroying this country and it’s past time to break out the heavy ammo!

PaddyORyan on August 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM

First, people on our side need to actually keep up with what’s going on. The “Obama is a nice guy who’s in over his head” ended after the b.s. “Romney may have committed a felony.” Romney straight up told every media outlet that his initial assessment on Obama was wrong — and he delivered that message with a nice little smile.

Pay attention — it will save a lot of time.

Dark Star on August 4, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Romney straight up told every media outlet that his initial assessment on Obama was wrong — and he delivered that message with a nice little smile.

Dark Star on August 4, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Wow. Really hard hitting stuff.

Perhaps he might escalate it and suggest that perhaps that fellow, Obama has been a trifle rude on occasion?

sharrukin on August 4, 2012 at 6:45 PM

So is it really true that socialism and communism are dying?

sharrukin on August 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Yeah, I believe it is and has been for a pretty long time. The problem is that the dems, progressives, socialists, communists, etc are fighting that death the best they can. They keep doing the same crap over and over around the world and it doesn’t work. The progressives here have been patiently accelerating America’s demise for decades, then along comes obumble and pushes it so hard the failure is almost preceding the implementation.

Sort of like how the light of an explosion overtakes the sound of it. Obamacommie has pushed too hard too fast, blowing the progressive agenda and with it a good chunk of traction they had gained over the decades. I think they’re really pissed with him, but he pushed because he wanted to be the next karl marx, not set it up for the next socio-nazi.

God, even china has realized they have to incorporate some capitalist policies, and with it comes freedom they have to work like dogs to contain. It’s better than all out communism, which some hardliners are trying to maintain, but it’s still going to fall apart on them.

The left wing plans of enslaving the world while the few elites sit at the top and eat cake are going to fail. It’s going to take a long time though, and it needs help dying. WE need to hasten that by educating our youth, instead of letting those clocksuckers continue to indoctrinate our kids.

If we give up though, all is lost.

Wolfmoon on August 4, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Wow. Really hard hitting stuff.

Perhaps he might escalate it and suggest that perhaps that fellow, Obama has been a trifle rude on occasion?

sharrukin on August 4, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Well, some people aren’t going to be satisfied unless Romney challenges Obama to a duel. Of course those people have never run a successful presidential campaign — nor, for that matter, become multi-millionaires in the world of high finance, or turned around an Olympics game from a huge loss into a $100 million surplus. Unless & until I see Rove & Romney panicking, I’m not going to panic either.

Dark Star on August 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM

He was impeached and expelled on a 2/3 votes of the senate on the next day. … If that ain’t impeachment and conviction, then let’s just make it happen to Reid and you can call it what you want. They may have known something about the intention of the Constitution at the time.

Expulsion is not a conviction. There was no trial. The articles were dismissed.

Yes, they did know what the intent of the Constitution was. The Constitution, specifically, states that the President, Vice-President, and CIVIL officials (cabinet secretaries, etc.) are subject to impeachment and removal. Judges are given lifetime appointments, subject to “good behaviour,” which means that they can be impeached and removed.

Read Buckner Melton’s article, “Federal Impeachment and Criminal Procedure: The Framers’ Intent,” in the Maryland Law Review 52 (1993)at 437-57 and his book, “The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount.”

All of this is irrelevant. There are not now nor will there be 67 votes in the Senate to convict and remove Harry Reid for defaming Mitt Romney on the floor of the Senate.

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Karl Rove’s opinion ain’t worth snot. Every time someone from the trainwreck of an administration that gave us Obama appears on TV, they increase the likelihood of a 2nd Obama term.

Mr. Wednesday Night on August 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM

But am I correct in thinking that the Dems only want the tax returns so they can nitpick individual entries and try and wrap Romney up tryong to answer stupid questions?

Yes.

I guess I don’t understand why Romney doesn’t indicate the dates the IRS accepted his past years returns and that until the IRS indicates a problem and/or calls for an audit the returns should be considered as proof he has met his tax obligation.

katiejane on August 4, 2012 at 6:33 PM

The IRS has audited Romney several times I’m sure. You don’t turn in a tax return that’s over 100 pages without getting a special dose of scrutiny, and that goes double if you aren’t a liberal pig. He doesn’t need to release them, only what’s required at the appropriate time, but if I were him I’d make a trade on tidbits of them in exchange for reids returns, pelosi’s returns, and obama’s medical records.

Wolfmoon on August 4, 2012 at 6:53 PM

He’s not saying that Romney failed to pay enough taxes or not his “fair share.” He is claiming that Romney hasn’t paid ANY taxes in the past 10 years, a claim that is demonstrably false on its face since we know that:

Romney paid $3,009,766 in Federal income taxes in 2010.

…and he paid $3,226,623 in Federal income taxes in 2011 and may have to pay more when his formal return is filed.

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Actually the shameless liar is claiming he didn’t pay taxes for 10 years. He never says which 10 years. We might be able to extrapolate he pays about $3 million a year in taxes (plus a big chunk to charity) and has paid about $30 million in taxes over any 10 year period.

Buy Danish on August 4, 2012 at 7:04 PM

The Romney campaign might want to call people like Reid and others who keep raising question about Romney’s tax returns “taxers” – aka people make up false stories about someone’s tax returns.

As to Karl Rove’s comments, the real problem is the Democratic media establishment.

Why is the LSM not going after Reid? Of course, we know the answer. The Democratic media establishment is the Ministry of Truth, acting as palace guards for Obama.

So, Romney handled Reid properly, with his comment “put up or shut up!”

john.frank on August 4, 2012 at 7:08 PM

If Obama wins re-election (God help us) resulting in the GOP electing a tougher Speaker of the House, can we envision impeachment of both Obama and Biden for not upholding their duties and breaking the law, whereby the Speaker is promoted to President? (If that’s possible).

HoosierStateofMind on August 4, 2012 at 7:15 PM

The IRS has audited Romney several times I’m sure. You don’t turn in a tax return that’s over 100 pages without getting a special dose of scrutiny, and that goes double if you aren’t a liberal pig. He doesn’t need to release them, only what’s required at the appropriate time, but if I were him I’d make a trade on tidbits of them in exchange for reids returns, pelosi’s returns, and obama’s medical records.

Wolfmoon on August 4, 2012 at 6:53 PM

As I wrote earlier in this very thread, Romney has confirmed that the IRS has audited him a “few times” but not in the last 10 years (i.e., the audits were pre-2002).
We already know Romney paid taxes in 2010 & 2011 from the tax return & estimate he has already released; therefore the “10 year period” Reid is alleging cannot be from 2001 to 2011. And anyone who thinks the IRS missed any 10 year period where Romney didn’t pay ANY taxes in their pre-2002 audits, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. QED — Reid is full of chit & is baiting Romney to get him to release more returns so that Obama can lie about/exploit/misrepresent what is in them because, unfortunately for Obama, unlike divorce proceedings (see: Jack Ryan) tax returns can’t be “leaked” any other way.

Dark Star on August 4, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Why would hopeychange denounce attacks he orchestrated?

lonestar1 on August 4, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Actually the shameless liar is claiming he didn’t pay taxes for10 years. He never says which 10 years. We might be able to extrapolate he pays about $3 million a year in taxes (plus a big chunk to charity) and has paid about $30 million in taxes over any 10 year period.

Buy Danish on August 4, 2012 at 7:04 PM

He said:

“The word’s out that he hasn’t paid ANY taxes for 10 years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t.”

Sounds pretty present tense to me. If he meant a ten year period in the past, he would have said “The word’s that he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years…” Instead, he said, “he HASN’T paid any taxes for 10 years…”

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM

You’re right. We’re both right. His original statement was:

“Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” the Senate’s top Democrat told the website, recounting what he says a Bain investor called him to tell him a month or so ago. “He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid continued. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

He later made the more specific and indisputably false claim you refer to on the Senate floor.

Buy Danish on August 4, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Karl Rove’s opinion ain’t worth snot. Every time someone from the trainwreck of an administration that gave us Obama appears on TV, they increase the likelihood of a 2nd Obama term.

Mr. Wednesday Night on August 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Not really, but if Romney goes down, I hope Rove goes with him.

rickv404 on August 4, 2012 at 9:24 PM

No question that President Zero orchestrated the attacks. I doubt Harry would have taken such a brazen risk without being ordered to do so.

Philly on August 4, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Expulsion is not a conviction. There was no trial. The articles were dismissed.

By whom? The senate can’t “dismiss” an impeachment.

Yes, they did know what the intent of the Constitution was. The Constitution, specifically, states that the President, Vice-President, and CIVIL officials (cabinet secretaries, etc.) are subject to impeachment and removal. Judges are given lifetime appointments, subject to “good behaviour,” which means that they can be impeached and removed.

Senators obviously fall under the category of civil officials, as understood by the Framers. Conviction after impeachment is limited to expulsion, the senate expelled him the next day. Which of the Founding Fathers took issue with the House impeaching Blount? Did scotus have a problem with it? Was the Chief Justice presiding over the impeachment? The Constitution speaks of impeachment as a trial for which scotus has jurisdiction and I suspect that the Chief Justice of the time was presiding over the matter.

blockquote>Read Buckner Melton’s article, “Federal Impeachment and Criminal Procedure: The Framers’ Intent,” in the Maryland Law Review 52 (1993)at 437-57 and his book, “The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount.”

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Why would I want to read some 20th century spin by someone who doesn’t like the fact that senators can be impeached? If he can convince you that the Founders were acting unconstitutionally, the guy can convince you of anything.

Buddahpundit on August 4, 2012 at 9:31 PM

This is not chicago style. This is Nevada style. It is the fault of the crooked jerks in Nevada that elect this piece of excrement. reid represents the people of Nevada; they elected him. His morals are their morals. Let’s all boycott Nevada. When californika sinks into the Pacific, I hope they will take Nevada with them. That whole state is run by the mafia.

Old Country Boy on August 4, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Maybe the allegations are … true.

Suppose Obama got the IRS to show him Romney’s tax returns and they showed just what Reid is saying.

How to get the story out w/o revealing that the tax returns were shown to Obama (or Axlerod, etc)in violation of federal privacy law?

You get someone with congressional immunity to stand in the senate well and make the allegations.

Labamigo on August 4, 2012 at 9:56 PM

You think the campaign is ugly now, wait two more months, with no improvement in the economy and Barry’s numbers sagging.

The only campaign style Barry knows is a DIRTY campaign. Of course he stays above the fray REMAINING SILENT.

GarandFan on August 4, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Who the phuck cares what this hack thinks. Shut the phuck up and stop whining.

Uppereastside on August 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Oooh! Don’t we talk tough! And so grown up too!

Still waiting for you to identify the “we” who are going to out Romney’s tax returns in October, you effete candyass.

CurtZHP on August 4, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Uppereastside on August 4, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Oooh! Don’t we talk tough! And so grown up too!

Still waiting for you to identify the “we” who are going to out Romney’s tax returns in October, you effete candyass.

CurtZHP on August 4, 2012 at 10:10 PM

I don’t think he’s very manly either. Can you imagine if it was confronted on the street for anything?—-”Please, please don’t hurt me.”

arnold ziffel on August 4, 2012 at 10:33 PM

If I’m correct Reid may may be playing with the verbiage of his statement, there is a good chance Romney didn’t pay “income taxes” for nearly 10 years. There is a good chance Romney had no “ordinary income” to pay taxes on, just capital gains and dividend income.

If that is the case he ought to just agree with Reid and tell him that’s “what happens when you work had and invest well”.

Tater Salad on August 4, 2012 at 10:41 PM

…“I not only don’t see the president disavowing it, I see his closest political adviser joining in this shameful activity. So the president hurts himself by this. What happened to all those promises of elevating politics … this is personal, this is shameful, this is despicable, this is Chicago-style thugs.”

.

This is a period. This is put it at the end of the sentence. This is called “grammar.” This is necessary for ease of understanding.

At best, you can use a semicolon between the last four anaphorous sentences, but the period after “disavowing it” is imperative.

Lastly, the ellipsis should be a question mark.

I usually don’t correct grammar and spelling, but three fairly major and elementary errors in one paragraph is a bit too much to go uncommented.

Wino on August 4, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Tater Salad, that’s been discussed. Romney has lived off investment earnings for more than a decade. He might have had enough write-offs and charitable contributions to reduce his tax burden.

Seeing that Romney has run for governor and president before, I will go out on a limb and assume his accountants were smart enough to have declared his retirement income as taxable. He would be a target for an audit because of his wealth, and I’m sure his political affiliation magnified that over the last four years.

Fun with twisted words by Dirty Harry. Otherwise knows as lies and obfuscation.

Philly on August 4, 2012 at 11:01 PM

By whom? The senate can’t “dismiss” an impeachment.

The Senate can dismiss it but not conducting a trial. It is NOT obligated to conduct a trial following an impeachment.

Senators obviously fall under the category of civil officials, as understood by the Framers. Conviction after impeachment is limited to expulsion, the senate expelled him the next day.

No. Conviction follows a trial in the Senate. There was no trial. They voted to expel him without a trial. Two different things.

Which of the Founding Fathers took issue with the House impeaching Blount? Did scotus have a problem with it? Was the Chief Justice presiding over the impeachment? The Constitution speaks of impeachment as a trial for which scotus has jurisdiction and I suspect that the Chief Justice of the time was presiding over the matter.

The CJ never presided over anything in the Blount case. There was NO trial. He was expelled after a vote to expel, not a trial. The House and Senate can expel their members by a vote without an impeachment in the House and a conviction in the Senate. Tomorrow, the House of Representatives could vote to expel Sheila Jackson-Lee, if it wanted. The Senate could vote to expel ChuckYou Schumer, if it wanted. No impeachment or trial and conviction would be necessary.

Why would I want to read some 20th century spin by someone who doesn’t like the fact that senators can be impeached? If he can convince you that the Founders were acting unconstitutionally, the guy can convince you of anything.

You’re right. Why would you be interested in learning what the Founders wrote about impeachment or what they discussed at the Constitutional Convention? Why would you be interested in learning about the very topic of whether Senators and Representatives can be impeached that has been discussed by learned men, many Founders of this country, courts, historians, etc., for more than 200 years?

Obviously, I am wrong. You are absolutely correct. There has never been any Senator or Congressman that was “corrupt” enough in the history of the United States since Senator Blount until Harry Reid to warrant being impeached because, obviously, if there were and impeachment was an option, surely, and I mean surely, people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would have used it to get rid of as many of their enemies on the Hill as possible.

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 11:16 PM

this is why I hate the Gop establishment. Rove used this same tactic against COD in De in 2010. Now he is outraged that Reid would use it against Mitt? Can you say hypocrite. And I’ll tell Mitt the same thing rove told COD if it isn’t true than just release the documents proving your innocent. If not you have something to hide.

Mitt not wanting to release his tax records gave the dems the perfect opening for this slime campaign. I think our candidates should do over and above what is needed to ensure the American people know everything about them before they get elected. I hate skeletons, I hate october surprises and I hate the fact that by keeping information back it gives the other side ammo to smear a person’s charater. but it does and to be “outraged” about the fact that the other side uses the same tactics that you did is just a bridge too far. People like ROve stay in business because they relie on your short term memory being crap. I really can’t stand the the slime balls of Rove and Reid.

unseen on August 4, 2012 at 11:20 PM

this is a sign of both the desperation of the Democrats and more important than that, the complete lack of character, the slime ball nature of the Senate majority leader. And Harry Reid ought to be disgusted and embarrassed and ashamed because he shamed the great institution that he claims to lead.”

hmmmm

The establishment Beltway strategist couldn’t even bother with an obligatory word of congratulations for O’Donnell. He criticized her “character” and “rectitude” and claimed she hadn’t answered questions about her financial woes

freaking hypocrite.

unseen on August 4, 2012 at 11:25 PM

•Obama and his campaign asked Reid to make the attacks in order to get the smear out without having Obama’s/Team Obama’s own fingerprints on it
•Obama didn’t initiate it, but he’s comfortable with the smear and desperate to get some traction on Romney
•Obama’s afraid to tell Reid to stop, and risk angering his class-warfare base

really that’s the only three?

the dems have been planning this attack for months. Why do you think they made such a big deal about Mitt releasing his income taxes records. and mitt refusing. I don’t know wha tthe truth is here. but regardless of the truth which we will never find out most likely. The dems set up Mit tperfectly for this. And Mitt walked right into the trap. His stone walling for months about releasing his tax returns made people question what he wa shiding. So its not a shock tha tthe dems would “help” people figure out wha the wa shiding even if he wasn’t hiding anything. This is the same type of tactic that the gop establishment used on Obama with his birth cirtificate. both may be true, neither true one true the othe rnot. It doesn’t matter. It crerates doubt and mistrust among the voters predisposed to support the other guy but thinking about voting for a different horse this time. It makes them reconsider their desire to vote Obama out. And tha tis why Obama will not call off Reid.

Of course Mitt can stop all this be releasing his tax returns but more than likely that will open him up to many more attacks which is why he is hiding them in the firs tplace. This is effort to get Mitt to release his tax returns nothing more nothing else. And unless he does the dems will build their own narrative with the lack of information they can make up stories out of whole cloth .

unseen on August 4, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Listen. If the majority of the public thought that Republicans had a good idea on how to run our country then Obama would have never been elected. Now that he was some think the answer is “hey,lets give the republicans another chance” Well aren’t they the ones who got us into this mess that Obama can’t get us out of? Imagine hiring a plumber to fix your pipes, he breaks them so you call another plumber to fix them, he fails, so now you call the first plumber again? Why do Americans fall for being treated like a hamster in a wheel?

Politricks on August 4, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Obama and his campaign asked Reid to make the attacks in order to get the smear out without having Obama’s/Team Obama’s own fingerprints on it
Obama didn’t initiate it, but he’s comfortable with the smear and desperate to get some traction on Romney
Obama’s afraid to tell Reid to stop, and risk angering his class-warfare base

Didn’t know HA turned into a conspiracy theory website. Surely you have some proof to back-up those statements Ed, or are you just as bad as the person you are trying to denounce in this article?
Here’s a thought…conservatives want Obama to weigh in on every issue i.e. Chic-Fil-A and Harry Reid and when he doesn’t this what we get. Obama doesn’t have to say anything about Harry Reid’s “Joe Wilson moment”, he didn’t make the allegation.

StoneKrab on August 5, 2012 at 12:12 AM

The winds from the Windy City smell more like farts…

Sherman1864 on August 5, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Did anyone else try the website mentioned by Rove? I got “Sorry, the page is unavailable.”

weaselyone on August 5, 2012 at 12:40 AM

For those who were wondering it is /main and not .main.
Easy enough to find after a minute of looking

weaselyone on August 5, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 11:16 PM

How long after the impeachment of Blount did the senate decide to hold a trial for Blount? What is the only penalty for being convicted by the senate?

You might be a victim of a historical hoax. I think you realize that no Founder could have had a problem with the impeachment of Blount at the time of the impeachment, but you have it in your mind that all the Founders did a 180 and decided that it was unconstitutional a year and a half after impeachment.

Buddahpundit on August 5, 2012 at 12:44 AM

The way Rove stated it, it sounded like there was tax information going all the way back to 2002 on the site. That is not the case, there is no information for taxes paid on any of the financial disclosure forms from 02-07. Mitt has the 2 years up there, but that is it for taxes. I think Rove just basically lied on television. After calli g Harry Reid a scumbag. What Mitt has released already is enough, why would Rove push this lie? It can do nothing but hurt Mitt. Oh, maybe Jeb wants to run in 2016.

weaselyone on August 5, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Obama doesn’t have to say anything about Harry Reid’s “Joe Wilson moment”, he didn’t make the allegation.

StoneKrab on August 5, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Prove that Obama has not paid the only Mormon he could find , to attack Romney ?
Prove that Obama will not benefit from this filth .
Has Obama asked Reid to shut up with the lies yet ?

burrata on August 5, 2012 at 1:12 AM

How is this even an issue if Romney had released as many tax records as all recent candidates. And I know folks are going to say “college transcripts.” Except can anyone point to an American president in the last 30 years who released their undergraduate transcripts? Unless more than half of the last 5 released their college transcripts then it doesn’t quite seem like the same issue.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2012 at 1:27 AM

libfreeordie on August 5, 2012 at 1:27 AM

When McCain released his birth certificate to the Congress,
why didn’t Hussein ?

burrata on August 5, 2012 at 1:34 AM

Rove: Why isn’t President Hopenchange denouncing Reid’s attack on Romney?

Why do we ask dumbass questions that we know the answer too?

deedtrader on August 5, 2012 at 1:41 AM

why didn’t Hussein ?

burrata on August 5, 2012 at 1:34 AM

Because McCain was born in Panama. Which is not a U.S. state. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. A U.S. state. And therefore a semi-soverign government that the federal government recognizes as legitimate. And which, observes the same beauracratic systems as all 50 states. Which not only allows, but demands, that the federal government respect their ability to collect and verify birth records. The state of Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth certificate. Case. closed.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM

libfreeordie on August 5, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Wrong.
The correct answer :
Hussein’s handlers had planned that crying ” racism” would answer every question about their boy,
so they were not prepared with answers about his questionable and suspicious background.

burrata on August 5, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Wrong.
The correct answer :
Hussein’s handlers had planned that crying ” racism” would answer every question about their boy,
so they were not prepared with answers about his questionable and suspicious background.

burrata on August 5, 2012 at 1:48 AM

Well that’s interesting. Because in the 2008 election, when it came down to the question of his birth certificate, the Obama campaign first pointed to the fact that the state of Hawaii (a state no less a state than Iowa, Pennsylvania, Wyoming or Oregaon) had verified Obama’s birth certificate. They produced a certificate of live birth. A document which has the *exact* same legal authority as the piece of paper filled out when Obama was born. This means, that as far as the constitution is concerned (not the federalist papers, the constitution), Obama was a legitimate candidate for President.

The calls of racism came into play when Obama submitted legal documents and a host of people decided that they were not “good enough.” They invented a new definition of natural born citizen, one that any Presidential candidate had to have two parents who were U.S. citizens. Ironic since that wouldn’t apply to George Washington, whose parents were born before the nation was formed. What else can explain why conservatives decided that the state of Hawaii would manufacture a document that did not exist? Either its racism or insanity. And of course we know that the two are basically the same thing.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2012 at 1:57 AM

libfreeordie on August 5, 2012 at 1:57 AM

It must be racism that caused Hussein and his wife to lose their law licenses, right ?
Prove that they didn’t lose it because Hussein had used a forged SS# and other forged documents and the Mooch was an accessory to his crimes.
Afterall, Hussein has family members using forged documents too, it must be racism.
Hussein spending millions to seal everything about his life must be because of racism too, right ?

burrata on August 5, 2012 at 2:11 AM

It must be racism that caused Hussein and his wife to lose their law licenses, right ?

Neither Barack or Michelle Obama lose their law licenses, they requested that the state of IL shift their licenses to “inactive” status as neither of their jobs required that they practice law. Many many people with law degrees do not work as practicing lawyers. In fact, it is so common that most law schools offer students a copy of books with titles like “what you can do with a law degree.” You may not know this if you don’t know anyone who’s ever been to law school.

If you’re not practicing law why should you pay bar fees, carrying insurance the ongoing cost of legal education etc. I guess the Obamas should have realized that some people would pretend as if lawyers who are no longer practicing law don’t shift their state status to “inactive.”

Prove that they didn’t lose it because Hussein had used a forged SS# and other forged documents and the Mooch was an accessory to his crimes.

How can I prove they *didn’t* do something. I can not prove the absence of something. If you are claiming Obama forged a social security number, than prove it.

Afterall, Hussein has family members using forged documents too, it must be racism.

I’m not familiar with what his family members have done or not done. But are you actually suggesting that the President is responsible for the actions of his family members. His adult family members. Are you responsible if your sister commits a crime? What an odd way of looking at the world.

Hussein spending millions to seal everything about his life must be because of racism too, right ?

burrata on August 5, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Again, what records has Obama sealed that other Presidents have allowed access to? And unless you can point to a significant number of documents Obama has sealed that other Presidents have *not* sealed, this all becomes conjecture.

libfreeordie on August 5, 2012 at 2:33 AM

Prove that Obama has not paid the only Mormon he could find , to attack Romney ?
Prove that Obama will not benefit from this filth .
Has Obama asked Reid to shut up with the lies yet ?

burrata on August 5, 2012 at 1:12 AM

Why should I have to? What does President Obama have to do with any of this? It is on the accuser (Ed) to prove the President is culpable in all of this…not the other way around.

StoneKrab on August 5, 2012 at 3:03 AM

You’re right. Why would you be interested in learning what the Founders wrote about impeachment or what they discussed at the Constitutional Convention?

Resist We Much on August 4, 2012 at 11:16 PM

The House was very interested in that question, which is why they went to the actual Founder who wrote the impeachment clause and he confirmed that senators were civil officers liable under the clause. His name was John Rutledge.

Rutledge also happened to be the second chief justice of the supreme court. He wasn’t chief justice at the time of impeachment, but they wouldn’t feel the need to get the opinion of the current chief justice on the question when the author was still alive.

Buddahpundit on August 5, 2012 at 3:16 AM

Why do Americans fall for being treated like a hamster in a wheel?

Politricks on August 4, 2012 at 11:35 PM

they really don’t “fall” for it. they just have no choice with the two party system. If you only had two plumbers what else will you do. This btw is the reason the TEA party won such an electoral landslide in 2010 America was given a 3rd choice. Of course the party structure in America made it that the Tea party was sidelined in DC as soon as it arrived. What we need is a strong 3rd party in this country.

unseen on August 5, 2012 at 6:31 AM

This btw is the reason the TEA party won such an electoral landslide in 2010 America was given a 3rd choice.

yeah, except the Tea Party is just republicans who aren’t moderate. They are far right conservatives; still under the Republican brand, but just farther to the right. A real third party doesn’t vote amongst party lines. The Tea Party has proven that it does.

StoneKrab on August 5, 2012 at 6:59 AM

yeah, except the Tea Party is just republicans who aren’t moderate. They are far right conservatives; still under the Republican brand, but just farther to the right. A real third party doesn’t vote amongst party lines. The Tea Party has proven that it does.

StoneKrab on August 5, 2012 at 6:59 AM

there is nothing “far right” about the TEA party. Unless you think believing in the constitution is “far right” And yes most of them in 2010 were republicans but that was mostly because the house and senate majority were dems. Now since the GOP controls the house look for more Tea party candidates to start to come from the dem side. Never thought I would see the day when people that want to return the country to the ideas upon which it were founded as “far right conservatives”

when the dem party understands what a mistake it made by embracing marxism to such an extant they will come back to the middle. If they don’t they will have their own TEA party. the american people don’t want socialism as the defacto governing style in America.

unseen on August 5, 2012 at 7:15 AM

there is nothing “far right” about the TEA party. Unless you think believing in the constitution is “far right” And yes most of them in 2010 were republicans but that was mostly because the house and senate majority were dems. Now since the GOP controls the house look for more Tea party candidates to start to come from the dem side. Never thought I would see the day when people that want to return the country to the ideas upon which it were founded as “far right conservatives”

when the dem party understands what a mistake it made by embracing marxism to such an extant they will come back to the middle. If they don’t they will have their own TEA party. the american people don’t want socialism as the defacto governing style in America.

unseen on August 5, 2012 at 7:15 AM

wow…like I said “far-right”. You can’t see it because you are obviously standing in it. There will be no DEM Tea Party candidates…that’s just a silly thing to say. Why run away from being a “far-right” conservative? Isn’t that a good thing? Also, name one philosophy that the Tea Party shares that far-right conservatives don’t. Sarah Palin is far-right and she is indeed a Tea Party person correct?

StoneKrab on August 5, 2012 at 7:22 AM

Silly.
Why isn’t Romney (or Rove) denouncing attacks on Obama.
Oh right…because the president really did say ‘you didn’t build your business!’.
The Repubs as victims here is getting tired. Clean up your own house first, then maybe you can play outrage.
Romney is once again defensively trying to explain his low tax rate and is again
having to answer why he refuses to release even rough tax numbers.
And Rove is desperate to stop those questions…not these ‘attacks’.

verbaluce on August 5, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Why should I have to? What does President Obama have to do with any of this? It is on the accuser (Ed) to prove the President is culpable in all of this…not the other way around.

StoneKrab on August 5, 2012 at 3:03 AM

I see your librul double standard is showing. You state the accuser has to prove the president tobe culpable. However, this same argument doesn’t apply to dirty harry reid, Romney’s accuser?

Old Country Boy on August 5, 2012 at 8:42 AM

I see your librul double standard is showing. You state the accuser has to prove the president tobe culpable. However, this same argument doesn’t apply to dirty harry reid, Romney’s accuser?

Old Country Boy on August 5, 2012 at 8:42 AM

yeah…I’m pretty sure I never said it didn’t apply to Harry Reid…as a matter of fact I said:

Didn’t know HA turned into a conspiracy theory website. Surely you have some proof to back-up those statements Ed, or are you just as bad as the person you are trying to denounce in this article?

Assumptions will get you in trouble every time.

StoneKrab on August 5, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Romney shows his past taxes when Obama shows his college transcripts

Gedge on August 5, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Confusion over here about the issues of tax returns-

I work as a credit analyst and in order to get a loan you have to show at least 3 years of tax returns, all k1s and all supporting statements, we won’t make a loan if ONE k1 is missing.

Why is Romney so insecure about showing off his tax returns?

zbunde on August 5, 2012 at 9:30 AM

And I think Reid is an idiot for calling him out like that- there is simply no way possible with current tax code that Romney didn’t pay any personal taxes…

zbunde on August 5, 2012 at 9:33 AM

More game playing. Distract the sheep.

Dante on August 5, 2012 at 9:39 AM

There is a reason that obama comes to Vegas so often after he told every one not to come here. It is well known that obama and Reid are lovers. They meet in Vegas because what hapens here stays here you know. Well I did hear that from some one that said they knew…

cjt1957 on August 5, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3