Talk:Karl Rove/Archive 5

message: Passage:
----
Discussion:
In September of 2005 a fax intended for Karl Rove was intercepted inwhich Lamar Smith states "Immigration needs to be considered in the context of: (1). Media Bias, (2). Animosity toward the president and (3) the feelings of the Republican base," Smith is a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims as well as the Subcommittee on Economic Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Cybersecurity. No issues regarding the legislative jurisdiction of these committees are mentioned. Smith also suggests that "Liberals can easily and accurately be painted as opposing enforcement." 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 19 September 2005
:This is a premature addition. Wait for story to play out, and if important or relevent, add. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: doesn't seem particularly interesting even if true ... what am i missing? Derex 00:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Daddy, I think what is meant is consensus with respect to this fax issue only, not the entire article.  To focus discussion, Hip has sectioned this fax topic into a space so we can get consensus on small passages, one at a time, instead of broadly disputing the whole article.  This is a good method because it clears disputed topics off the laundry list one at a time.    Hip, I hope I'm stating this correctly.  paul klenk talk 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fax Interception 

message: In response to question by paul klenk that started this thread, here are some additional "bits":
* White House stonewalling of the investigation.  This deserves mention in this article because of Rove's influence at the White House.
* Ashcroft's conflict of interest.  Ashcroft, a friend of Rove's who had hired him in the past for much political work, continued to oversee the matter for some time after being told that Rove was a subject (he eventually recused himself).  This is more about Ashcroft than about Rove, but it's part of explaining why many people will be dubious about any official exoneration of Rove.  I'm undecided about whether this should go in.
* Congressional Republicans' blocking of inquiries.  The Republicans have killed all attempts to hold Congressional investigations as long as the special prosecutor is investigating.  Many of these are the same Republicans who wasted no time holding well-publicized inquiries into several allegations against the Clinton administration that were simultaneously the subject of Department of Justice investigations.  Rove certainly has some influence with Congressional Republicans, but I think this point is distant enough from Rove himself that it  should be omitted from this article.
These matters are discussed here. JamesMLane 05:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot, James. These are very helpful for my purpose.   :-)   paul klenk 05:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other points about the Plame affair

message: A week should be enough.  --Tony SidawayTalk 19:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Someone wrote - 
"controversial figures such as Jesse Jackson have criticisms woven in" and went on to suggest that using Bush's Brain to slime Rove was the same as using the Independent Counsel's Report on William Jefferson Clinton to report on bill's white house activities. (I know...wow!)
First of all, I agree that Jackson may be unfairly smeared.  I will go into this  article and remove any unsubstantiated slams as they have no place in Wikipedia anymore than all the slime in this article does  and I'm an equal opportunity bias eradicator. Secondly, to compare the one or two shots across the bow at Jackson in his, by comparison, tiny article with this <B>unending, incessant, persistent-to-the-point-of-paranoia litany of charges </b> against Rove is like comparing a thundershower with Hurricane Katrina. 
And, I'm sorry the Independent Counsel's report has  a little more credibility than a hit piece put together by a bunch of rove-hating democratic journalists from Austin. You might not like the findings of the honorable Judge Starr's report, but it is an official government document and as such enjoys Wikipedian good housekeeping seal of approval. A better comparison to Bush's Brain would be the Clinton Chronicles. Wikipedia is a better place without sourcing either. Big Daddy 00:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Please post when you remove any unsubstantiated claims from the Jesse Jackson article.  That's a great, impartial idea.  Can't wait to see the great job you'll do!  --Eleemosynary 08:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The tit for tat negotiation and the snide suggestion above are prime examples of bad-faith, by both parties. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, I think Hipocrite has every right to advise on this topic.  As for you, "Big Daddy," when are you going to respond to your RFC page? Eleemosynary 05:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I would like to congratulate the poster (69.64.213.146) on the above message.  I have a question for him/her: Are you the same person who left the comment "Deleted right-wing idiotic whining. Nice try, moron" in an edit summary, or is that someone using your IP?  ("Your" talk page has a very interesting history of its own, by the way.)   paul klenk talk 06:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, User:69.121.133.154, for keeping this page content-driven.  And thanks for trolling from page to page, user to user, telling everyone about BD's RfC.  And, further, thank you for finding lots of out-of-context quotes to "load up" his RfC with as many watered down complaints as you can possibly find -- and for bringing them to this page.  And don't let me forget to thank you, dear anonymous user, for singularly dedicating yourself to this task since you came on board about the same time BD's RfC was filed.  (I apologize for not responding on your talk page, but I'm sure you would just mischaracterize my comments as an "attack" and then blank the page.)   What was your point, again, about Clinton and Jackson's articles?  Oh, sorry, I wouldn't want to "feed the trolls."  paul klenk talk 06:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for my last comment.  I was wrong when I said you had a talk page.  Wrong.  You don't.  You have to register to have a talk page of your own.  paul klenk talk 06:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything to contribute about the article content, anyone? -- RyanFreisling @ 16:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparing Clinton and Jackson's article with Roves

message: Pictures are generally encouraged to liven up articles visually.  I thought this might go nicely in the section where the book is mentioned.  Comments anyone? Derex 22:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm down, but I'm sure someone will have a problem with it. --kizzle 02:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That such a book even exists is a good illustration of Rove's prominence, unusual for someone in his position. JamesMLane 14:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: K, put it in. --kizzle 05:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Visual 

message: I'm curious as to why this section is listed under "1980 George H. W. Bush presidential campaign".  The section has only marginal relationship to the heading title.   The complete text of the section: 
"For the next few years, Rove worked in various Republican circles and assisted George H. W. Bush's 1980 vice-presidential campaign. Rove is credited for introducing Bush to Lee Atwater, who would go on to play a critical role in Bush's 1988 presidential campaign. Like Atwater, Rove is well known for his effective campaign tactics, employing push polls and frequently attacking an opponent on the opponent's strongest issue.
In 1981, Rove founded direct mail consulting firm, Karl Rove + Company, based out of Austin, Texas. This firm's first clients included Republican Governor Bill Clements and Democratic Congressman Phil Gramm, who later became a Republican Congressman and United States Senator. In 1993, Rove began advising George W. Bush's gubernatorial campaign. He continued, however, to operate his consulting business until 1999, when he sold the firm to focus his efforts on Bush's bid for the presidency."
While this section does have peripheral connection to Rove's involvement in the 1980 Bush Presidential Campaign, it is more a discussion of Rove/Atwater campaign tactics and Rove's ownership of his consulting firm, which is a little silly seeing as how there is a section on the Consulting Business later in the article.
My apologies if this is the wrong forum or format for this particular point, or if I am repeating a point that had been made previously.
:This is absolutly the right place, and I do not believe it has been made before. Do you have a suggested edit, or should I give it a go? WP:JETFA Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1980 George H. W. Bush presidential campaign 

message: The passage added by the anon, without supporting citation, said that "Rove's Virginia residence has been targeted by angry liberal protesters."  Big Daddy jumps to conclude that "liberals had vandalized Karl's home" and vows to include that in the article.  Assuming for the moment that the anon's statement is correct, I'd interpret "protesters" as meaning "people carrying banners and picket signs and standing around on public property near Rove's house, denouncing him for something or other".  If anyone's ever broken into Rove's house, it was probably just a run-of-the-mill burglar. JamesMLane 00:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's going to be a shame when you get reverted because you didn't have concensus. --kizzle 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protest at Karl Rove's residence

message: I have been informed by a respected Wikipedian that the use of terms like 'far right' and 'far right winger' is considered unacceptable usage. I presume that to mean those terms will be soon removed from the Bill Clinton article <I>as well as all other articles</i> where such violations currently exist. Therefore, I am modifying the 'Clinton Model' for the Karl Rove article to exclude similar expressions. With that correction, this section is good to go and now finally ready to be added. Halleljuah! Big Daddy 09:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who? You can't be secretive about this. --Woohookitty 05:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Because this is an open, public forum. Frankly, I've never heard that those things are unacceptable. I want to know where you are getting this piece of information from. --Woohookitty 20:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Clinton Model Modified

message: ...I edited this section to comport more with the truth. Weaver's quote was not about the black child incident (or, if it was, it's unclear) and the quote leaves out what he continued to say. In short the use of this quote is A DISHONEST attempt to find some support for an unsubstantiated allegation. Sorry, I've seen the flick. It's just not there. 
Secondly, Founder Jimmy Wales, whose edict published in these very talk pages has been treated contemptuously, said that highly biased sources must be qualified. I have qualified Bush's Brain with the hyperbolic cum paranoid verbatim quote from the author. Why anyone who honestly respects what Jimmmy Wales has instructed us would want to take this out is a question I hope someone can find the answer to. Here's how the section looks now:
According to Richard H. Davis (the campaign manager of John McCain's 2000 presidential bid), a telephone push poll was conducted during the 2000 South Carolina primaries which asked potential voters "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" . McCain was campaigning with his adopted, dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter at the time. According to Davis, the push poll was designed to suggest that the girl had been fathered illegitimately by McCain. In a 2004 editorial Davis called the push poll "effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign" and that he "had no idea who had made those calls, who paid for them, or how many were made". The authors of the 2003 book Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential (also made into a movie which began with the book's authors claiming that Karl Rove was a danger to the republic) allege that Rove was involved in this push poll due to his role as campaign advisor to Bush. 
Big Daddy 04:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I call for an ending of the constant mentions of Jimmy Wales. It's a little like constantly mentioning God as a reference. I have a feeling that if we sat Jimmy down and had him read your posts, he'd probably gag. As I've said a few times, NPOV isn't a whole lot of liberalism and a whole lot of conservatism in articles. It is meant to be neutral language not favoring either side. What you propose usually isn't neutral. So please stop pretending like Jimmy would be on your side or something. Please. It's gaming the system. It's all it is. So please stop. --Woohookitty 05:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with Woohookitty.  But it's an attempt to game the system, and it's not working.  It's odious brown-nosing, not even rising to the level of a 2nd grader begging the teacher to let him clean the blackboards.  It's sad, silly, and typical. Eleemosynary 07:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: So do you mean that you've read all 10,000+ of my edits and also every time I've tried to make an article NPOV? I didn't become an admin by accident. I had one dissenting vote out of apprx. 40 votes to become an admin. You know nothing about me and how I usually deal with users on here. You've mentioned my line of saying that "now you are going to call me a pinko commie liberal". I didn't get that out of thin air. I got that from reading your posts. You deal with all editors who contradict you the exact same way. So what I say here is not typical of how I deal with users on here in the least. I judged you based on your record. You are judging me based on posts on here and on your talk page, which involved responding to someone who has exhibited a pattern of calling anyone that contradicts him "a liberal" or "a godless liberal". You calling me uncivil and telling me that I do not deal with users without attacking them is the best example of the pot calling the kettle black that I've ever run into on here or anywhere else. --Woohookitty 19:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: While a Consensus builds..

message: From the policy page: "Using sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the policy specifically does not apply to groups. Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct."
So accusing a "group" of violating the 3RR is incorrect. The violation wasn't claimed here but it was claimed in edit summaries today. --Woohookitty 20:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While edit warring is never good, generally when a "group" is involved in reverting one person's edits, even when together they comprise more than three reverts, that's usually called enforcing consensus. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: A vote isn't necessary for there to be a consensus about something. Apparently that's what's happened, as so far the only person pushing for your version is you, while there seem to be multiple others who disagree. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That is a quite novel interpretation. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but you do need a concensus when everyone claims their version is based upon common sense, reasonableness, and factual analysis. --kizzle 23:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Charges of violation of the 3 revert rule