Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Karl Rove's GOP family values

Another pillar of the Republican party's commitment to "family values" has just dumped his wife.

Former Bush adviser and FoxNews douchebag Karl Rove has proven once again that he has "families" values, because he loves families SO MUCH that he can't wait to start looking for his third shot at one!

Generally I couldn't care less if a person has problems in their marriage and decides to get a divorce. But when that person is such a high profile member of a political party that makes "family values" a central plank in its platform, and indeed even goes to the extraordinary lengths of proposing a Constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage between same-sexed individuals, you would think they would treasure that fine institution instead of going through wives like they're leased Buicks.

I know what's really going on here. Karl Rove is simply a victim of all that rampant "homo-marrying" that's being allowed to occur in states like Connecticut. Here he was, happily hitched to his recent Mrs. Rove until the threat of gay marriage put such an incredible strain on his own marriage that he realized he simply had no choice but to dump the woman! He's old school when it comes to strategy, and reminiscent of some Vietnam-era generals, he felt the only way to save his marriage was to destroy it.

That's admirable in a way. He loves the concept of marriage so much that he couldn't suffer the thought of staying in one while gays were allowed to marry all over the place. You see? It was a totally unselfish act him getting a divorce, simply to prove the point that gays shouldn't get married! Brilliant!

Karl Rove on traditional marriage (via Mother Jones):
WALLACE: Explain to me why civil unions can be handled at the state level but marriage can't.

ROVE: Well, marriage is a very important part of our culture and our society. If we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal. And the ideal is that marriage ought to be and should be a union of a man and a woman.

And we cannot allow activist judges to overturn that. We cannot allow activist local elected officials to thumb their nose at 5,000 years of human history and determine that marriage is something else.
I'm not sure which is more offensive; that Rove says we can't have a decent society if gays are allowed to marry, or that he's coming across like a biblical literalist who thinks divorce is just fine and dandy. "5,000 years" is almost a code phrase to the fundamentalists, who love the idea that there was nothing but featureless void until God stepped in and did his whole Genesis gig.

I guess that Rove, like many religious hypocrites, uses bits and pieces of the Bible when it supports his goals, and ignores others when it crimps his desire for a "newly-single" lifestyle. And none of his GOP supporters will ever call him out on his hypocrisy.


West Haven Bob said...

Maybe he dumped her for his one and only true love: HIMSELF

oldswede said...

Oh, gimme that ol' time religion. Check out Deuteronomy 22 for a sample of righteousness. Verses from thirteen to the end are the juiciest.
How much blood would be shed if we still followed these laws?

Susan said...

Oh poor Karl. He tears up when he talks about his brave now-ex-wife who's been dealing with breast cancer. See? He really does have a heart. Really.

West Haven Bob said...

Of course he has a heart: he has the romantic heart of a young boy... and he keeps it in a jar on the mantle...

Happy New Years, everyone! Hope 2010 is good for you!

Screwed Again said...

Why waste time mentioning Rove and all other conservative idiots. None of the imbeciles will change no matter what the argument is. I don't care who or why any person gets married or divorced. Its not my concern. My strategy is to ignore Rove and all other conservatives.

West Haven Bob said...

Yeah...and if you ignore the train, it won't run you over...

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

You folks are in absolutely no position to complain over any contrived hypocrisy.

Where were you guys for the entire two year Litchfield Synagogue fiasco prior to their finally filing a federal suit?
(Couldn't find the time? It went on and on; gimme a break.)

The entire bunch of you was no where to be found, and not a single liberal blogger posted diddly.

Many have no problem calling us Nazi's; but will you lift a finger for Jews? Apparently not.

In fact the biggest offender, Litchfield Historical District Commission Chair, Wendy Kuhne is a Democrat. (She arrived in a Prius festooned with the obligatory "Chris Murphy" bumper sticker to the meeting.)

Did any of *you* drive to Litchfield an enter the battle?
Not *one* of you.

Your party receives massive support from labor unions; however how many of your own party's CT legislators own non-union automobiles?

Go to the LOB when the clowns are in town and count `em!
Over half.

What else can we possible expect from a party that once had this as their national slogan?

This is a White Man's Country! This is a White Man's Government!

West Haven Bob said...


As usual, you state half of the story, and present it as the entire truth.

You statements are true, as far as it goes...but it is also a fact that the Democratic Party in the period 1840-1880 allowed itself to become dominated by southern extremists (sound familiar?) ...notable Democratic abolitionists (and northern Democrats) found that their party had abandoned them, and migrated to the nascent Republican party (which was formed by the few progressive Whigs and the progressive/abolitionist Democrats).

The Republican Party, which was the sole political party from 1860 until nearly 1932, had its own internecine battles between progressive/conservative wings (remember, Teddy Roosevelt was only selected as McKinley's running mate because New York Conservative Republicans wanted him out of Albany).

I firmly believe that our sorry past is now repeating itself within the Republican Party; our self-immolation should serve as a cautionary tale to all Republicans.

Finally, (and just to tweak you) it is my firm belief that, were they forced to choose between today's Democratic or Republican Parties, two of the presidents on Mt. Rushmore would easily choose the former.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

West Haven Bob

You ignored and totally failed to explain why neither you nor any other blog from the left did a damned thing regarding Litchfield.
Not a word out of any of you.

Where were all ("we (weeping & wringing hands) really care about people") the mouthy, holier than thou assholes from MLN?

No one showed up, no one posted a single word save for Cool Justice and me.

Did you all forget?
Silence implies agreement.


>>Teddy Roosevelt was only selected as ....

I never had a "Teddy Bear" and neither did my son; they're named "Teddy" after that scoundrel.

Teddy Roosevelt was a bastard.

His "trust busting" amounted to nothing towards towards the desired ends and instead set back whole markets and industries to even this day.

Too long for here - but in 1905 fish taken in early in the morning at T-Wharf in Boston (then the largest fishing port in the U.S.) was shipped on ice and available all over the eastern seaboard by that afternoon.

Naturally the thing to do was to force the owners of T-Wharf (who had also contracted the 1st commercial ice machine and enjoyed Boston phone number "5") to divest.

By 1914 Boston was no longer and would never again be the largest fishing port.

Pure idiocy.

[disclaimer - distant relative and a brother freemason, normally I say *nothing* regarding masons I don't agree with; however the owners of T-Wharf were my great-grandfather & his brother.]

West Haven Bob said...


Thought that would rattle your chains! }:~p

As for Litchfield - in my case, "silence does NOT imply consent" implies ignorance. I know nothing regarding this issue: neither the pros or the cons. If you haven't noticed, progressives are all too happy to gang up on one of their own when they disagree.

It's what Republicans call "lack of discipline", but what I call "open discussion."

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>I know nothing regarding this issue: neither the pros or the cons.

Yeah....there was no press on any of it.

Stories regarding Litchfield Synagogue

West Haven Bob said...


Excuse me...but I just googled the same; and I checked the New Haven Register's archives.

There is ONE article, in the Waterbury Republican.

Whatever the hell this issue is about, apparently, only the Waterbury press feels it important enough to comment upon.

By the way, why are YOU so silent on the senior tax issue in West Haven? I guess you're in favor of raising taxes on our well as raising property taxes on all of us.

As you say..."silence implies consent".

(BTW...check your Google results before figurative slamming them on the desk as damning got one hit too - the rest had other issues about the synagogue)

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>Excuse me...but I just googled the same; and I checked the New Haven Register's archives.

Do you understand how Google works?

Apparently not.

Google tucks older news articles away in "archives".

Had you taken the link I provided you would have been taken here:

394 results (between 2000 - 2009) for Litchfield Synagogue.

Now then - just what were you saying?

West Haven Bob said...

Just a wee bit silent on the other issues I raised, though!

"A lie in the hand is better than the truth about Bush!" - Republican mantra

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>By the way, why are YOU so silent on the senior tax issue in West Haven?

Because I'm an Authentic Republican and as such it's understood by virtually everyone (save for you it would seem) that we're opposed to most all taxes.

`How will we pay for all this government?' you rhetorically ask.

Close some of it down completely.

It costs over 130 million to collect the sales tax (not to mention what it costs businesses, which we all wind up paying for anyway).
Dump it, bring it to zero.
Can't take it off our federal anyway.
Jack the income tax to accommodate the loss, (I can hear the screaming already) but we'll make our retailers rich so at least they'll be paying us a bundle in income taxes. (Never mind we might even create a few jobs.)

Stop the fraud.

IE: Exactly one company is "allowed" to sell & service photocopiers to the State.

One (well them and their subsidiary, so you could count "2")

We can only imagine who got what for that sweetheart deal.

Board of Eds all over the state fail to audit themselves and most are *very* resistant to hand over financial data (never mind it's our tax dollars) and more than one has purchased computer equipment with 2 or 3 year old guidelines and bids; creating a windfall for the vendor.

There's not a little bit of waste going on, there's millions and millions of expenses that aren't quite Kosher, more at the local level than state.
But since we hand bonus bucks back to cities & towns, it's all coming out of all of us anyway you'd like to cut it.

West Haven Bob said...

Oddly enough, I agree with much of your post. I'd go one further: if we must have a property tax, then (a)exempt motor vehicles, and (b) change the basis to an ad valorem standard. This would protect seniors from being taxed out of their homes, and place the burden of your tax level squarely on how much you paid for the house (and not what others would pay.

Or is that too progressive?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>if we must have a property tax, then (a)exempt motor vehicles

Other states often whack the dickens out of drivers of new expensive cars during the registration process.

Makes sense, and there's no reason not to squeeze a few extra bucks out of people that can afford a new un-American Lexus; in fact it's the least we can do for the traitorous weasels.

Between some plan including something along those lines and dedicating our fuel tax to only
transportation with the surplus(*)
being sent back to the towns with some new formula; there's no reason to continue making car ownership so punitive to some residents.

(*) There's plenty of surplus every year above & beyond that winds up in the general fund (a giant black hole where money disappears forever).

I can't find anything on West Haven's alleged "senior tax" - but it seems to me, if you can afford a senior you should have thought of the tax before you brought them home.

CT Bob said...

OK, now THAT was funny!

Connecticut Man1 said...

ACR: On the Litchfield Synagogue, isn't that the whole Brickload incident where Andy T. (Cool Justice) was taking heat for linking to your Nazi post?

If I recall correctly? I did post on that in a roundabout way. Kindof/sortof.

In November, right?

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

If I recall correctly?


Despite public meetings that went on over a two year period, you failed to make the short drive from New Milford even once.

Connecticut Man1 said...

ACR... I deal in national politics. State and town politics has never really been my interest.

I barely cover the stuff in my own town. Hell? I follow world politics more than my own town. And I very rarely drive anywhere to cover anything.

But you can't even give a simple thank you to me for trying to take some of the heat off of you and Andy for what, I thought, was a decent post you made. Edgy but decent, nonetheless.

You're welcome...

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

>>But you can't even give a simple thank you

You're absolutely correct and I apologize.

That'll teach me to post at 4am without a drop of coffee.

Connecticut Man1 said...

:) Not a thanks but close enough coming from a Republican. lol Your honestly and unsnarkily welcome.

Daniel Hirsch said...

Hi Karl Rove
The condition of family is very good.Because he loves very much.And the many problems create in the family obviously.So the last option is divorce................
Commercial Ice Machines