<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Politalk</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2008:/news/politics/politalk//124</id>
   <updated>2008-02-07T22:13:37Z</updated>
   
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 3.36</generator>

<entry>
   <title>What Now for Missouri Conservatives?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2008/02/what_now_for_missouri_conserva.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2008:/news/politics/politalk//124.77819</id>
   
   <published>2008-02-07T21:43:32Z</published>
   <updated>2008-02-07T22:13:37Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Feb. 7 Super Tuesday has come and gone, and given some disappointing results, Mitt Romney has decided to drop out. His comment about leaving the race was typically self-aggrandizing as well as predictable pap by those who mistakenly equate the...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      Feb. 7

    Super Tuesday has come and gone, and given some disappointing results, Mitt Romney has decided to drop out.  His comment about leaving the race was typically self-aggrandizing as well as predictable pap by those who mistakenly equate the war in Iraq with the war on terror. If he had stayed in the race, he said, the fight for the nomination would be a drawn out affair and Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would then probably win.  And as he put it, he wouldn&apos;t want to cause a surrender to terror.  Please.  No one wants to give in to terrorism, but patriots from all parts of the political spectrum can have honest differences on how the fight should be waged.  It&apos;s the same as his campaigning in Michigan by telling troubled auto workers there he&apos;ll help get their jobs back.  Pandering at best, blatantly dishonest at its worst.
    OK, so what do Missouri conservatives do now?  Out of a little over 550,000 votes cast in the Republican primary, Romney and Huckabee got almost 358 thousand.  If John McCain does become the party&apos;s nominee, which seems likely now, what will those folks do?  Conservative radio talk show hosts have been howling about McCain for some time now, and some have even suggested they won&apos;t vote or gasp!, even vote Democratic.
     But there&apos;s a silver lining here for Republicans.  If Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee for the Democrats, I firmly believe she will rally the Republican base like no one since Ronald Reagan.  Conservatives will turn out in droves to defeat her...that&apos;s a good part of the reason Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill endorsed Obama.  What if Obama becomes the nominee? The crystal ball becomes much more murky with that scenario.  Conservatives would presumably favor McCain, but would they turn out in the numbers needed to elect him?  
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>A Third Term for Bill?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2008/01/a_third_term_for_bill.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2008:/news/politics/politalk//124.73597</id>
   
   <published>2008-01-23T02:08:32Z</published>
   <updated>2008-01-23T02:25:19Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Jan. 22 He joked about it when he first ran for President. With Hillary, Bill Clinton said, you get two for the price of one. Some people didn&apos;t like that much, but some 16 years later, we&apos;re still getting two...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      Jan. 22

     He joked about it when he first ran for President.  With Hillary, Bill Clinton said, you get two for the price of one.  Some people didn&apos;t like that much, but some 16 years later, we&apos;re still getting two for the price of one.  Bill seems to be campaigning almost as hard as his wife, and receiving a good bit of press in doing it.  His criticisms of her main challenger (Barak Obama) seem un-presidential to many (including me), but despite some party leaders telling him to cool it, he may find it impossible to keep quiet.    
     If nothing else, it raises the entirely legitimate question of what kind of role will the former president play if his wife does win the White House.  Try as he might, it&apos;s hard to see Bill Clinton being satisfied to remain in the background.
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>The Clintons</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2008/01/the_clintons.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2008:/news/politics/politalk//124.70859</id>
   
   <published>2008-01-09T00:15:41Z</published>
   <updated>2008-01-09T00:26:28Z</updated>
   
   <summary>January 8 As I write this, the polls are about 45 minutes from closing in New Hampshire. And to judge by the histrionics in the Clinton camp, the Senator from New York doesn&apos;t expect the tally to be favorable. First,...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      January 8

     As I write this, the polls are about 45 minutes from closing in New Hampshire.  And to judge by the histrionics in the Clinton camp, the Senator from New York doesn&apos;t expect the tally to be favorable.  First, after Iowa, as I predicted, she went negative on Obama, or tried to.  Then she tried to retool her message from experience to change (which is Obama&apos;s).  And finally, she came close to breaking down in tears.  Not to mention her husband going off on the media today about not being tough enough on Obama.  And just a few minutes ago, the wires reported that big shake-ups are coming in the Clinton camp...and that they might actually skip the next two primaries and concentrate on Super Tuesday.  Wow...I confess I didn&apos;t see this kind of meltdown happening.  I thought she would be steady as she goes, but apparently Iowa really rattled her.  I&apos;m sure she&apos;s praying the vote tonight will at least be close.  If it&apos;s not, it may be difficult for her just to get to Super Tuesday. 
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Off With The Gloves?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2008/01/off_with_the_gloves.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2008:/news/politics/politalk//124.70255</id>
   
   <published>2008-01-05T01:48:15Z</published>
   <updated>2008-01-05T02:00:54Z</updated>
   
   <summary>January 4 So now the voters of Iowa have spoken, and Hillary Clinton was not first, not second, but third. And the spinners in her camp are working overtime. Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn said &quot;This had nothing to do...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      January 4

     So now the voters of Iowa have spoken, and Hillary Clinton was not first, not second, but third.  And the spinners in her camp are working overtime.  Clinton chief strategist Mark Penn said &quot;This had nothing to do with issues.  When it comes to issues, we&apos;re seen as President.&quot;
      Hmmm...seems to me the Clinton camp had to be reeling by the size of Barack Obama&apos;s win, and the record turnout.  But they&apos;re too smart not to realize what&apos;s happening.  That&apos;s why you saw all the blue signs around her at her postcaucus speech reading &quot;Ready for Change.&quot;
      If anyone has cornered that market, it would seem to be Obama.  But the Clintonites are bright enough to now realize that Iowans (and I would suspect many others) are sick of the status quo...so they&apos;ll change tack and head in that direction, or try to.  And watch for the Clinton campaign to go negative...as negative as they dare...on Obama.  They know if they don&apos;t take him down a notch or two quickly, his snowball may turn into an avalanche. 
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Iowa</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/12/iowa.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.69524</id>
   
   <published>2008-01-01T00:09:52Z</published>
   <updated>2008-01-01T00:20:00Z</updated>
   
   <summary>December 31st First of all, Happy New Year everyone. I hope 2008 is everything you want it to be for you and yours. For a bunch of candidates who have been canvassing Iowa like crazy for what seems like eternity,...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      December 31st
    First of all, Happy New Year everyone.  I hope 2008 is everything you want it to be for you and yours.
    For a bunch of candidates who have been canvassing Iowa like crazy for what seems like eternity, it&apos;s obvious what they want the New Year to bring, and quickly.
    Which brings me to the recent poll I saw, and the media coverage of it.  The headlines said, Romney back on top, Huckabee&apos;s bubble bursts, or something very close to that.  In the body of the story, it explained that Romney was now ahead in Iowa, 29% to 27%.  Only in the small print, did it also mention that the poll had a margin of error of plus or minus five percent.  Any decent pollster will tell you a poll with that big a margin of error is virtually worthless. It means the numbers for Romney and/or Huckabee could be off as much as ten points...which would dramatically change the whole story, wouldn&apos;t it?  So why run the story at all?
     Who&apos;s going to win in Iowa?  I don&apos;t know, but I do know the poll didn&apos;t shed any light at all on what will happen there. 
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Oprah, Chuck, etc.</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/12/oprah_chuck_etc.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.68379</id>
   
   <published>2007-12-21T01:17:58Z</published>
   <updated>2007-12-21T01:37:37Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Dec. 20 So...almost everytime I see Mike Huckabee now, I see a guy in the background who looks familiar. Oh, yeah, it&apos;s um, er, ah, Chuck Norris, that&apos;s right. Yep, he&apos;s endorsed the former Arkansas Governor... and Oprah is stumping...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      Dec. 20

     So...almost everytime I see Mike Huckabee now, I see a guy in the background who looks familiar.  Oh, yeah, it&apos;s um, er, ah, Chuck Norris, that&apos;s right.  Yep, he&apos;s endorsed the former Arkansas Governor... and Oprah is stumping for Obama...and Magic Johnson is for Hillary.  
      Do celebrity endorsements make a difference?  Clearly in terms of star power endorsements, Oprah&apos;s has to outshine all the others.  But is anyone really going to vote for Obama because Oprah likes him?  The candidates themselves must think so...since they try to line up stars for their side.  
      I find the whole thing a little silly, but I&apos;m sure the candidates think even if it just means a few votes, that could make the difference.  As Lyndon Johnson used to say, &quot;If you do absolutely everything, you will win.&quot; 
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Mitt&apos;s Message</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/12/mitts_message.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.65844</id>
   
   <published>2007-12-06T20:29:40Z</published>
   <updated>2007-12-06T20:35:44Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Dec. 6 Mitt Romney decided to deal with his religion head on today. In a speech at the George Bush Presidential library, he defended his Mormon faith, but also said his religion would not play a part in any decision...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      Dec. 6

     Mitt Romney decided to deal with his religion head on today.  In a speech at the George Bush Presidential library, he defended his Mormon faith, but also said his religion would not play a part in any decision he might make as President.
      I thought he appeared calm and poised, and did a good job of making his case.  But will that put the issue to rest with voters?  What do you think?  Should a candidate&apos;s religion have anything to do with his (or her) qualifications for President?
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Is Anyone Listening?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/12/is_anyone_listening.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.65388</id>
   
   <published>2007-12-04T20:27:25Z</published>
   <updated>2007-12-04T20:42:21Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Dec. 4 Let&apos;s see...a month ago Iran&apos;s ability to develop nuclear weapons was so dangerous the President warned us of World War III. Now the NIE says Iran halted that program 4 years ago. The President says that doesn&apos;t change...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      Dec. 4

        Let&apos;s see...a month ago Iran&apos;s ability to develop nuclear weapons was so dangerous the President warned us of World War III.  Now the NIE says Iran halted that program 4 years ago.
The President says that doesn&apos;t change his opinion about Iran at all.  Really?  16 agencies say all the crying of wolf by Misters Bush and Cheney was without foundation...and there are some reports indicating that the President knew the contents of the report BEFORE he made his World War III comments.  Talk about rattling sabers...it&apos;s like the run-up to Iraq all over again. Discount or downplay any doubts or evidence other than your pre-formed opinion and push ahead.  But this administration&apos;s credibility is in such tatters with the vast majority of Americans that I&apos;m not sure anyone really pays attention anymore.    
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Waste of Time?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/11/waste_of_time.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.64089</id>
   
   <published>2007-11-27T21:26:01Z</published>
   <updated>2007-11-27T21:35:12Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Nov. 27 So Missouri Governor Matt Blunt toured the state yesterday touting legislation forbidding illegal immigrants from getting a driver&apos;s license. Why the need for a new law? They&apos;re already prohibited from getting one. It wouldn&apos;t have anything to do...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      Nov. 27

    So Missouri Governor Matt Blunt toured the state yesterday touting legislation forbidding illegal immigrants from getting a driver&apos;s license.  Why the need for a new law?  They&apos;re already prohibited from getting one.  It wouldn&apos;t have anything to do with trying to emphasize an issue for his re-election campaign, would it?  It&apos;s a classic case of a politician trying to appear like he&apos;s actually doing something.  His likely opponent next fall, Attorney General Jay Nixon, quickly called it a &quot;political stunt.&quot;  
    Anytime one politician accuses another of a political stunt, it has to make you chuckle.  It&apos;s the pot calling the kettle black.  But in this case...he&apos;s right.
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Money Talks</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/10/money_talks.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.58831</id>
   
   <published>2007-10-30T00:38:17Z</published>
   <updated>2007-10-30T01:18:29Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Oct. 29 Interesting tidbit in the softball article in the Post-Dispatch Sunday about former congressman Dick Gephardt. Gephardt is now a well paid lobbyist, among other things. And so where he once was for a resolution calling the mass killings...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      Oct. 29

    Interesting tidbit in the softball article in the Post-Dispatch Sunday about former congressman Dick Gephardt.  Gephardt is now a well paid lobbyist, among other things.  And so where he once was for a resolution calling the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915 genocide, now he&apos;s lobbying against it on behalf of the Turkish government.
    As California representative Anna Eshoo said, &quot;It represents a sea change in terms of position, but money does that.&quot;  Yes, it does.  Is it any wonder that people are so cynical about politicians and especially members of Congress?  To paraphrase the old saying, money talks, and everything else walks.  
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Jo Ann Emerson</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/10/jo_ann_emerson.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.57836</id>
   
   <published>2007-10-23T19:33:03Z</published>
   <updated>2007-10-23T19:57:34Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Oct. 23 Missouri representative Jo Ann Emerson has done it again. She has endorsed former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for President. And she&apos;s agreed to serve as the chairwoman of his Missouri campaign. This despite the fact that she...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      Oct. 23

     Missouri representative Jo Ann Emerson has done it again.  She has endorsed former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for President.  And she&apos;s agreed to serve as the chairwoman of his Missouri campaign.
      This despite the fact that she disagrees with him on issues like abortion and gun control. And that her colleagues from Missouri have avoided taking sides in the crowded race for a party nominee. 
      It reinforces Emerson&apos;s well deserved reputation as a bit of a maverick...a smart, blunt person who is practical, not ideological when it comes to party politics.  She recently crossed the aisle to vote for the SChip program (expanding access to health care for poor children), which prompted a veto by President Bush.
      Whether you agree with her positions or not, I for one think it&apos;s refreshing to see someone who votes her conscience rather than simply toeing the party line.  Washington could use more like her.
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>The Ultimate Grinder</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/10/the_ultimate_grinder.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.54602</id>
   
   <published>2007-10-03T00:09:12Z</published>
   <updated>2007-10-03T00:40:12Z</updated>
   
   <summary>Oct. 2 I was at dinner the other night with some politically savvy friends. One of them, a highly successful doctor, was talking about her distaste for Hillary Clinton. There&apos;s no way she&apos;ll win, she said, too many people hate...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      Oct. 2

      I was at dinner the other night with some politically savvy friends.  One of them, a highly successful doctor, was talking about her distaste for Hillary Clinton.  There&apos;s no way she&apos;ll win, she said, too many people hate her.
      Don&apos;t be so sure, I said.  The same thing was said when she ran for the U.S. Senate seat in New York.  Her poll numbers steadily rose as she went around the state, listening to voters and working hard every day.  She won easily, and it seems to me she&apos;s doing the same thing now.  Yes, the number of people who don&apos;t like her is high.  But the number who do still outnumber them...and virtually everybody has made up his or her mind about her. 
      Yesterday Barack Obama&apos;s camp made headlines when it was announced he had raised 20 million dollars over the past three months.  No word from the Clinton camp...until today.  She had raised 24 million. 
       Bottom line...if you know anything about the Clintons and Hillary&apos;s history, you know she&apos;s in it to the finish.  If someone is going to beat her, they better bring their &quot;A&quot; game and never let up...because she won&apos;t.  She is as relentless a campaigner as you&apos;ll ever see, and stays on message.  And most of all, she&apos;s got a lot of money...with lots more on the way.
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>A.G.</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/08/ag.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.49935</id>
   
   <published>2007-08-28T18:17:50Z</published>
   <updated>2007-08-28T18:26:50Z</updated>
   
   <summary>August 28 The A.G. here stands for After Gonzales. Now that he has resigned, who will replace him and try to reverse the mess at the Justice Department? One name that has been mentioned for Attorney General has been former...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      August 28
     The A.G. here stands for After Gonzales.  Now that he has resigned, who will replace him and try to reverse the mess at the Justice Department?  One name that has been mentioned for Attorney General has been former Missouri Senator John Danforth.  A Republican...so that should pass muster with the Administration, but also a man respected on both sides of the aisle.  
      Mr. Danforth&apos;s name reminds me of a story the late Senator Tom Eagleton told me.  When Danforth was elected Senator, Eagleton, a Democrat, called him and said, &quot;We can do this the easy way or the hard way&quot; ...meaning they could dispute everything along partisan lines, or try to find common ground wherever possible and strive to do what was best for Missouri.  To Danforth&apos;s (and Eagleton&apos;s) credit, they pursued the latter, and their state and country were better for it. 
       If John Danforth is not the choice or does not want to replace Alberto Gonzales, someone like him should be...a man of integrity who will not be a prisoner of party politics. 
        
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Michael Vick</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/08/michael_vick.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.49454</id>
   
   <published>2007-08-24T00:12:45Z</published>
   <updated>2007-08-24T00:44:32Z</updated>
   
   <summary>August 23 My comment isn&apos;t about politics...but I guess it may have something to do with political correctness. Today I was taken to task by a couple of e-mailers for a remark I made on the air last night. A...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
      August 23

      My comment isn&apos;t about politics...but I guess it may have something to do with political correctness.  Today I was taken to task by a couple of e-mailers for a remark I made on the air last night.  A New York Knicks basketball player, Stephon Marbury, defended Michael Vick by saying dog fighting is a sport and that &quot;they&apos;re just dogs.&quot;
       Our sports anchor, Rich Gould, called it a sign the world is ending, and I chimed in by calling Marbury a moron.
       Of the two e-mailers, one was polite but said I shouldn&apos;t be venturing my opinion during a newscast.  The other said the same thing, but also said I should be more concerned about pedophiles and that I and others in the media were making a big deal of the case because Vick is black.
       Ah...where to begin?  First, dog fighting is a felony.  It is cruel and sadistic, not to mention often deadly.  Sport?  Getting pleasure out of the suffering of other living things is not sporting, it&apos;s barbaric.  Years ago, I did a story that helped convict a dog fighter and get him thrown in jail. It also helped toughen Missouri laws in that area.  I&apos;ve seen what happens to dogs that don&apos;t win, or according to their owners, don&apos;t fight hard enough. 
       So, Stephon Marbury IS a moron.  Was the newscast the place to say it?  I&apos;m sure my college journalism professors would say no, but it&apos;s hard not to react at times.
       The remark about pedophiles was as moronic as Marbury&apos;s.  Pedophilia and it&apos;s related crimes are, to my way of thinking, infinitely more heinous...but that doesn&apos;t make dog fighting (and executing them) any less odious.
       Finally, the comment about race, which unfortunately, seems to often make it&apos;s way into conversations about superstar athletes in trouble.  As the head of the NAACP so correctly noted today, Vick is not a victim in this case...and the color of his skin doesn&apos;t have anything to do with this being a big news story.
      
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Goodbye?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/2007/08/goodbye.html" />
   <id>tag:blogs.trb.com,2007:/news/politics/politalk//124.48576</id>
   
   <published>2007-08-15T20:56:06Z</published>
   <updated>2007-08-15T21:41:12Z</updated>
   
   <summary> So Karl Rove has left or is about to leave the Bush administration, and many think it&apos;s long overdue. Why? Because being a political operative is totally different from helping to govern and make policy. He may have been...</summary>
   <author>
      <name>Politalk</name>
      
   </author>
   
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en-us" xml:base="http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/politalk/">
           So Karl Rove has left or is about to leave the Bush administration, and many think it&apos;s long overdue. Why?  Because being a political operative is totally different from helping to govern and make policy. He may have been a comfort to his long time friend the President, but in joining the White House staff he did Mr. Bush no favors.  Instead of helping to find common ground and build a consensus, the White House (with Rove at least partially calling the shots) treated issues like Iraq and immigration largely by trying to discredit contrary opinions. Attack your opponents!  If they don&apos;t agree with the war, then they don&apos;t support our soldiers and they&apos;re SOFT ON TERROR!   Those kind of hardball tactics work during a campaign,(just ask the two Johns--McCain and Kerry)  but it&apos;s a divisive and ultimately ineffective way, it seems to me,  to run a country.   Rove has been an ardent practitioner of &quot;wedge&quot; politics...divide the public in order to win an election.  And he&apos;s been successful at it.  But it&apos;s the last thing this country needs. Both parties play gotcha politics these days instead of legitimately trying to find solutions to problems.  So a man like Karl Rove will be in heavy demand in an election year...he may operate behind the scenes, but I don&apos;t expect him to be retired for very long.    
      
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>
