First time visitor? Learn more.

Karl Rove taken off the air on Fox News

by Rodan ( 73 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2012, Progressives, Republican Party, Socialism, Tranzis at December 6th, 2012 - 11:30 am

Karl Rove is one of the biggest losers of 2012 as his Super PAC spent $300 million dollars and only got one Senator elected. He intervened in the primaries and organized the attacks on Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich that made Romney take positions that hurt him in the general election. Then to top it all off  he had a meltdown when Fox News called Ohio for Obama. It seems Roger Ailes has had enough of the overrated hack and has taken this clown off the air for now.

The post-election soul searching going on inside the Republican Party is taking place inside Fox News as well. Fox News chief Roger Ailes, a canny marketer and protector of his network’s brand, has been taking steps since November to reposition Fox in the post-election media environment, freshening story lines — and in some cases, changing the characters. According to multiple Fox sources, Ailes has issued a new directive to his staff: He wants the faces associated with the election off the air — for now.

For Karl Rove and Dick Morris — a pair of pundits perhaps most closely aligned with Fox’s anti-Obama campaign — Ailes’s orders mean new rules. Ailes’s deputy, Fox News programming chief Bill Shine, has sent out orders mandating that producers must get permission before booking  Rove or  Morris. Both pundits made several appearances in the days after the election, but their visibility on the network has dropped markedly. Inside Fox News, Morris’s Romney boosterism and reality-denying predictions became a punch line.

I wish Fox News would take Karl Rove off the air permanently. This man is a vile snake and a political has been. He’s a clown whose only job should be showing up at birthday parties in a clown suit. Karl Rove is the architect of defeat and should be shunned by the Right.

I think Republicans should listen to ex Democratic strategist Pat Caddell. This man warned Republicans that Obama’s tactics were working. He called the election correctly. He understands how Democrats think and has more credibility than that pudgy snake, Rove.

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

73 Responses to “Karl Rove taken off the air on Fox News”
( jump to bottom )

  1. Speranza
    1 | December 6, 2012 11:35 am

    He is a slimy political “fixer” and a bit of a buffoon. Just because the Left hates him does not make him someone we need to defend. What he cares about is power, and not winning elections. Fox needs to revamp its lineup of “contributors” and get rid of Rove, Dick Morris, Rick Santorum, and even Palin (they pay her $1 million a year for what exactly?).


  2. Speranza
    2 | December 6, 2012 11:37 am

    “The Architect” of what? Defeat and Bush cronyism.


  3. 3 | December 6, 2012 11:42 am

    @ Speranza:

    I hate this clown. He symbolizes everything wrong with the Gop.


  4. 4 | December 6, 2012 11:54 am

    Speranza wrote:

    “The Architect” of what? Defeat and Bush cronyism.

    He’s the architect of losing and turning off segments of the electorate.


  5. 5 | December 6, 2012 11:59 am

    @ Speranza:

    I rather listen to Pat Caddell and Doug Shoen. They know what they are talking about.


  6. eaglesoars
    6 | December 6, 2012 12:06 pm

    I understand Ailes decision. Rove was very prominent. But to be fair, he was far from the only one who got it wrong. The emminent Michael Barone got it just as wrong. As did many others. The person besides Cadell that got it right was Larry Sabato.

    Also, in Rove’s favor, his knowledge of precinct level stuff is probably second only to Barone’s.

    But why the vitriol? I remember back in the Swamp days we used to say “Rove, you magnificant bastard!”


  7. 7 | December 6, 2012 12:06 pm

    The only time I saw any real affection for Rove was during the Valerie Plame affair and that was only because that fool William Rivers Pitt at Democratic Underground made the absurd statement that Rove was going to be arrested in 24 hours, causing some equally foolish poster at DU (really is there any other kind?) to gleefully post the word “Freudenschade!” (which I have stolen for my own personal use ever since). Of course, when Rove didn’t get arrested, Pitt and crew amended that to “24 BUSINESS hours” which made clear pretty much that he was full of crap.

    I don’t know if Rove saw all that as a groundswell of support. Maybe it was, but all his subsequent actions and mouthings have made him, justifiably, an object of scorn.


  8. heysoos
    8 | December 6, 2012 12:08 pm

    Rove is an entertainer…he does the AmIdol soft shoe…his purpose is to take up space


  9. eaglesoars
    9 | December 6, 2012 12:08 pm

    Oh, forgot one thing. This story first showed up – as far as I can tell – in the Ddaily Mail (UK) about 4 days ago.


  10. 10 | December 6, 2012 12:09 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    I do recall that. Especially at Free Republic. And you don’t get more conservative and subject to the purity test than you get over there.


  11. 11 | December 6, 2012 12:10 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    It was on Twitter too. But just vague reference that Rove had been benched by Fox.


  12. 12 | December 6, 2012 12:11 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    I never liked Rove. He cynically used issues that gave the GOP a short term win, but ended up costing us long term.


  13. 13 | December 6, 2012 12:12 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    I do recall that. Especially at Free Republic. And you don’t get more conservative and subject to the purity test than you get over there.

    I was always anti-Rove!


  14. 14 | December 6, 2012 12:13 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    Rove is an entertainer…he does the AmIdol soft shoe…his purpose is to take up space

    He takes up plenty of space!


  15. heysoos
    15 | December 6, 2012 12:14 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Carolina Girl wrote:
    @ eaglesoars:
    I do recall that. Especially at Free Republic. And you don’t get more conservative and subject to the purity test than you get over there.

    I was always anti-Rove!

    I’m anti-everybody…he’s employed by the MSM right?….pretty simple for me


  16. 16 | December 6, 2012 12:14 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Rove lead the attacks on Perry and Gingrich. he also fund raised for Santorum to attack Perry and Gingrich. he’s real nasty man.


  17. 17 | December 6, 2012 12:15 pm

    @ heysoos:

    He’s responsible for the mess the GOP is in. He’s a relic of the past and needs to be shunned.


  18. heysoos
    18 | December 6, 2012 12:18 pm

    @ Rodan:
    relic of the past is sorta my point….it’s a new day, he’s a proven loser, less and less relevant, yet there he is, up there making millions….he’s part of the problem, not the solution….it’s not about information, it’s about ratings….he’s a tool


  19. 19 | December 6, 2012 12:19 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Prior to this election, I didn’t think too much about Rove one way or the other – however, this time, I was rather annoyed with his meddling, his White Board, and his sanctimonious drivel (how dare you guys not follow what I’m saying).

    Personally, I think he was waiting for some campaign to hire him for more than his Fox gig was paying.


  20. eaglesoars
    20 | December 6, 2012 12:25 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    He’s responsible for the mess the GOP is in

    I think there’s enough to go around. The RNC under Michael Steele was a farce. Priebus is much better, but not good enough fast enough. The advertising strategy was all wrong – millions on TV but almost nothing on the internet versions of sites/publications that the demos we needed actually use.


  21. 21 | December 6, 2012 12:31 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Priebus is better, true, but he withheld needed funds from Congressional candidates that Boehner wanted gone. Priebus went on Mark Levin’s show and promised that the RNCC would be sure to funnel funds to Michele Bachmann’s campaign, especially since Pelosi was spending millions in the district to try to defeat her. He never sent a dime. I have reason to believe he did the same thing to Allen West. Bachmann barely held on to her seat (and yeah, she’s a lousy Presidential candidate, but she’s a solid conservative vote in the House) and West lost his.


  22. 22 | December 6, 2012 12:31 pm

    Romney shill.

    ‘Nuff said.


  23. 23 | December 6, 2012 12:33 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    Personally, I think he was waiting for some campaign to hire him for more than his Fox gig was paying.

    Having a Y chromosome never stopped anybody from being a remarkably well-paid prostitute.


  24. eaglesoars
    24 | December 6, 2012 12:38 pm

    Rush is interviewing DeMint


  25. eaglesoars
    25 | December 6, 2012 12:39 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Hell, it’s not just the money – the R establishment basically re-districted West out.


  26. 26 | December 6, 2012 12:58 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    @ Carolina Girl:
    Hell, it’s not just the money — the R establishment basically re-districted West out.

    Yup.

    It’s long past time for a complete reboot of the GOP.


  27. 27 | December 6, 2012 1:12 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Yes and that was unforgivable. We need to clean house. We need to get rid of the ones up there that like their comfortable niche as the Opposition Party. The ones that have so continually pissed in the face of their base. People like Boehner, though he is only the face of the Establishment. We need to clean house, but I am afraid that we aren’t going to have the time.


  28. Speranza
    28 | December 6, 2012 1:18 pm

    eaglesoars wrote:

    But why the vitriol?

    He has way too much power in the Republican Party.


  29. Speranza
    29 | December 6, 2012 1:19 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    He’s responsible for the mess the GOP is in. He’s a relic of the past and needs to be shunned.

    A symbol of the well despised GOP Establishment.
    I would like to tell him where to put those chalk boards of his.


  30. Speranza
    30 | December 6, 2012 1:21 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    Priebus is better, true, but he withheld needed funds from Congressional candidates that Boehner wanted gone. Priebus went on Mark Levin’s show and promised that the RNCC would be sure to funnel funds to Michele Bachmann’s campaign, especially since Pelosi was spending millions in the district to try to defeat her. He never sent a dime. I have reason to believe he did the same thing to Allen West. Bachmann barely held on to her seat (and yeah, she’s a lousy Presidential candidate, but she’s a solid conservative vote in the House) and West lost his.

    The GOP Establishement never felt comfortable with Allen West.


  31. texasam7
    31 | December 6, 2012 1:26 pm

    @ Iron Fist:
    And don’t they KNOW that!


  32. waldensianspirit
    32 | December 6, 2012 1:36 pm

    Meaty, Beaty, Big, and Bullying


  33. taxfreekiller
    34 | December 6, 2012 1:51 pm

    Karl Rove is most likey to fly fast back down to Dallas and work day and night to enable little boy Bush and B. Obama to get the “am-nasty” laws on the books asap.

    We are going to get to see little boy Bush and B. Obama in a “joint” press release on how great “am-nasty” would be for all of U.S..

    Mark my words this event is on the agenda of the two party evil money cult.


  34. Speranza
    35 | December 6, 2012 1:56 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    Bachmann barely held on to her seat (and yeah, she’s a lousy Presidential candidate, but she’s a solid conservative vote in the House) and West lost his.

    I would gladly trade West being re-elected if the price were Bachmann losing her seat.


  35. taxfreekiller
    36 | December 6, 2012 1:56 pm

    ps

    Rove without the Swiftboat vets blog and Navy Chiefs work getting the comm logs of Kerrys swiftboat time from the “Vietnam Archives” at Texas Tech U. in Lubbock, Bush would not have been re-elected.

    He was and still is a go’fer for the east coast establishment RINO’s..


  36. taxfreekiller
    37 | December 6, 2012 2:00 pm

    Some RINO’s just use the Rove types to get the dole done by the Democrats so’s their local “subjects” have enough “dole” money to
    buy beer, cigaretts, used cars, and pay the Sec. 8 house requirement.


  37. Guggi
    38 | December 6, 2012 2:00 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    He’s responsible for the mess the GOP is in. He’s a relic of the past and needs to be shunned.

    Reaganomics is also a relict from the past

    The Myths of Reaganomics


  38. darkwords
    39 | December 6, 2012 2:02 pm

    Any quarterback is ok with me. but they still have to win and can’t get outclassed by the other guys quarterback. A problem in the GoP is putting all their eggs in the basket of one quarterback and not have a good game plan.


  39. eaglesoars
    40 | December 6, 2012 2:02 pm

    taxfreekiller wrote:

    Karl Rove is most likey to fly fast back down to Dallas and work day and night to enable little boy Bush and B. Obama to get the “am-nasty” laws on the books asap.

    I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised


  40. waldensianspirit
  41. darkwords
    42 | December 6, 2012 2:08 pm

    @ 20 eaglesoars: Conversations and persuasion are no longer local. They are viral like a Facebook friends list. Targeted and focused.

    A local Akin gaffe has national implications. Money can’t be moved around traditionally anymore.

    Obama asked many people to talk about him as his personal representative in the trenches. That message stuck and viraled out as community organizer for the people versus rich guy against the people.

    I never saw a single Romney counter to that argument. He needed to put his service aspect of his life out there. Humility just elected the other guy.


  42. taxfreekiller
    43 | December 6, 2012 2:12 pm

    Of some thinking on message:

    Every Conservative blog in the U.S. should put up the vote difference between Romeny and Obama on their front page and leave it there.

    Obama just got elected by a very very small number, he has no mandate at all.


  43. eaglesoars
    44 | December 6, 2012 2:13 pm

    And Fox can get rid of Bill Kristol while they’re at it

    Might it be prudent for Republicans to acquiesce, for now, to a modified version of Obama’s proposal to keep current income tax rates the same for 98 percent of Americans, while also insisting on maintaining the reduced payroll tax rate of the last two years (see “The GOP’s Payroll Tax Opportunity” above) and reversing the dangerous defense sequester? That deal would be doable, wouldn’t wreck the country, and would buy Republicans time to have much needed internal discussion and debates about where to go next.


  44. eaglesoars
    45 | December 6, 2012 2:14 pm

    taxfreekiller wrote:

    he has no mandate at all.

    Yeah, that’s what Susan Estrich thought.


  45. 46 | December 6, 2012 2:21 pm

    @ eaglesoars:

    Good point.


  46. 47 | December 6, 2012 2:24 pm

    Guggi wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ heysoos:
    He’s responsible for the mess the GOP is in. He’s a relic of the past and needs to be shunned.
    Reaganomics is also a relict from the past
    The Myths of Reaganomics

    I agree. What Reagan did in the 80′s is irrelevant to today’s situation.


  47. 48 | December 6, 2012 2:26 pm

    @ taxfreekiller:

    You know Rove is meeting with Porky (Jeb) as we speak plotting to win the nomination in 2016.


  48. 49 | December 6, 2012 2:29 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Bachmann is a loon. I would trade West for Bachmann anyday.


  49. Guggi
    50 | December 6, 2012 2:33 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Ah, I understand: when Reagan

    How well did Reagan succeed in cutting government spending, surely a critical ingredient in any plan to reduce the role of government in everyone’s life? In 1980, the last year of free-spending Jimmy Carter the federal government spent $591 billion. In 1986, the last recorded year of the Reagan administration, the federal government spent $990 billion, an increase of 68%.

    spent like insane it was ok, but when O. spends like insane it’s a no no.

    The same with defincit spending:

    The next, and admittedly the most embarrassing, failure of Reaganomic goals is the deficit. Jimmy Carter habitually ran deficits of $40-50 billion and, by the end, up to $74 billion; but by 1984, when Reagan had promised to achieve a balanced budget, the deficit had settled down comfortably to about $200 billion, a level that seems to be permanent, despite desperate attempts to cook the figures in one-shot reductions.

    What made Reagan the miracle politician ?


  50. Speranza
    51 | December 6, 2012 2:37 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Bachmann is a loon. I would trade West for Bachmann anyday.

    and twice on Sundays.


  51. taxfreekiller
    52 | December 6, 2012 2:38 pm

    Just got to thinking, and posted this another place, what think you guys?

    Say Charles Manson got elected as Pres. of U.S. and he did his normal deal and say this time he had it in for say the people of the middle east, sort of a big time clock work orange, a 100,000,000 or so into home invasions of the Sharon Tate kind, you know a rage of killing and destruction so’s that a new order could take the place of the current operation of the world there?

    just saying


  52. 53 | December 6, 2012 2:38 pm

    @ Guggi:

    Reagan was anti-Communist presided over a booming economy. Much of his deficit spending as to build up the military. In fact Reagan’s deficits were going down the last 3 years of his Administration. It was Poppy Bush who exploded the deficit in 90,91 and 92.

    I would take Regan over the Bushes, Clinton and Obama anyday. But Reagan was a man of his time. It was 30 years ago. Republicans need a new direction for the 21st Century.


  53. taxfreekiller
    54 | December 6, 2012 2:39 pm

    Hope Jeb is as dumb as little George and he wastes some of daddy’s money stash too.@ Rodan:


  54. 55 | December 6, 2012 2:40 pm

    @ taxfreekiller:

    I’d vote for him if he wanted to destroy the Mideast!


  55. 56 | December 6, 2012 2:40 pm

    @ Guggi:

    It is as much what you are spending on as t is just the spending. Reagan spent on our defense. That enabled us to win the Cold War. It was cheap at the cost compared to a hot war with the Soviet Union or (worse) losing the Cold War. Obama spends millions to send campaign contributors on world junkets and billions chasing Green Fairy Dust projects that line his contributors pockets. Still, Reagan’s deficits were pocket change compared to Obama’s. Obama has borrowed more money than all the other presidents prior to W combined. Even W, a prolifigate spender, borrowed but half as much in twice as long as Obama.


  56. 57 | December 6, 2012 2:41 pm

    taxfreekiller wrote:

    Hope Jeb is as dumb as little George and he wastes some of daddy’s money stash too.@ Rodan:

    :lol:


  57. 58 | December 6, 2012 2:42 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Guggi:
    It is as much what you are spending on as t is just the spending. Reagan spent on our defense. That enabled us to win the Cold War. It was cheap at the cost compared to a hot war with the Soviet Union or (worse) losing the Cold War. Obama spends millions to send campaign contributors on world junkets and billions chasing Green Fairy Dust projects that line his contributors pockets. Still, Reagan’s deficits were pocket change compared to Obama’s. Obama has borrowed more money than all the other presidents prior to W combined. Even W, a prolifigate spender, borrowed but half as much in twice as long as Obama.

    GMTA! Reagan’s deficits were necessary to rebuild our defenses that Nixon, Ford and Carter gutted after Vietnam.


  58. 59 | December 6, 2012 2:49 pm

    @ Rodan:

    And were cheap compared to the alternative. If Obama had done his stimulus and built a couple of new carrier battle groups and some SSBNs, I’d have been a lot more enthusiastic about it. Hell, fo rthe price he could have nuclearized the American power grid, creating millions of jobs and bringing us into the 21st Century, and it would have even been “Green”. He did none of that. He blew the money as assuredly as if he’d spent it all on hookers and cocaine.


  59. Guggi
    60 | December 6, 2012 2:49 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Much of his deficit spending as to build up the military.

    I agree but he was also a welfare president:

    There were other consequences of the expansion. Annual Federal spending on public housing and welfare, and on Social Security, Medicare and health all increased by billions of dollars. The poverty rate has fallen steadily since 1983.


  60. taxfreekiller
    61 | December 6, 2012 2:52 pm

    Looks like something else is after the oil, the cash flow and power it provides.

    Take out the current rulers and replace them with your puppets.

    Who the puppet master want to be’s are is unknown so far.

    Possible it is our same old commies of lust world wide.
    @ Rodan:


  61. 62 | December 6, 2012 2:53 pm

    @ Guggi:

    Do you want to debate Reagan vs. W Bush?

    If Reagan was a welfare President, Bush was a Socialist.


  62. Guggi
    63 | December 6, 2012 2:54 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    It was Poppy Bush who exploded the deficit in 90,91 and 92.

    Early in his term, Bush faced the problem of what to do with leftover deficits spawned by the Reagan years. At $220 billion in 1990, the deficit had grown to three times its size since 1980.[12] Bush was dedicated to curbing the deficit, believing that America could not continue to be a leader in the world without doing so.[12] He began an effort to persuade the Democratic controlled Congress to act on the budget;[12] with Republicans believing that the best way was to cut government spending, and Democrats convinced that the only way would be to raise taxes, Bush faced problems when it came to consensus building.[12]

    In the wake of a struggle with Congress, Bush was forced by the Democratic majority to raise tax revenues; as a result, many Republicans felt betrayed because Bush had promised “no new taxes” in his 1988 campaign.[12] Perceiving a means of revenge, Republican congressmen defeated Bush’s proposal which would enact spending cuts and tax increases that would reduce the deficit by $500 billion over five years.[12] Scrambling, Bush accepted the Democrats’ demands for higher taxes and more spending, which alienated him from Republicans and gave way to a sharp decrease in popularity.[13] Bush would later say that he wished he had never signed the bill


  63. 64 | December 6, 2012 2:55 pm

    @ taxfreekiller:

    I agree.


  64. 65 | December 6, 2012 2:56 pm

    @ Guggi:

    Reagan had a Democrat House and Senate. All spending has to go through the legislature (or it did until the Obama Regime). Reagan had to have budgets that he could get through Congress. You can thank Tip O’Neil for the welfare state under Reagan. Reagan never dreamed of ruling by Executive Fiat the way Obama has.


  65. 66 | December 6, 2012 3:02 pm

    @ Guggi:

    Nice try to defend Poppy, but here are the facts!

    1987 $149.7 Billion Deficit
    1988 $155.2 Billion Deficit
    1989 $152.5 Billion Deficit

    1989 was Reagan’s last Budget. Here are Poppy’s deficits.

    1990 $221.2 Billion Deficit
    1991 $269.3 Billion Deficit
    1992 $290.4 Billion Deficit
    1993 $255.1 Billion Deficit


  66. 67 | December 6, 2012 3:06 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    It’s apples and oranges.


  67. eaglesoars
    69 | December 6, 2012 3:57 pm

    dayum. I lily’d the thread


  68. citizen_q
    70 | December 6, 2012 4:09 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    Here, I will help, I hope.

    Surprise, Surprise, Surprise! who could have foreseen this happening? /////


    U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.
    No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

    But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.


  69. eaglesoars
    71 | December 6, 2012 4:12 pm

    citizen_q wrote:

    Surprise, Surprise, Surprise! who could have foreseen this happening?

    pfft. What do they think Benghazi was? It weren’t no ‘consulate’ it was a CIA outpost for funneling weapons


  70. citizen_q
    72 | December 6, 2012 4:36 pm

    @ eaglesoars:
    Bengazi? Nothing to see there! / MFM


  71. Guggi
    73 | December 6, 2012 5:24 pm

    Benghazi ? Not an “optimal” day for the four killed Americans.//////


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David