For much of President Clinton’s term, cons made much noise and hay of the fact that Hillary Clinton was not elected, and ergo should have no input on White House policy. Of course, at the time she was the President’s spouse and First Lady.
So, why is it a guy like Karl Rove, who has never been elected nor gone through a congressional vetting is the huge decision maker in the Bush White House (deflating the “decider” myth somewhat) and there’s nary a peep?
You get the sense that these people just have blind hatred towards Hillary Clinton without regard for facts or principles.
Or something.
No, no, you got that backwards. It’s us who have blind hatred of Bush. That’s all that could ever possibly motivate anyone to criticise the President.
How about a guy like Dick CHeney who has said as a member of the senate he is not bound by the rules governing the executive branch and then says as a member of the executive branch he is not subject to the rules of the senate?
How about a guy like Dick CHeney who has said as a member of the senate he is not bound by the rules governing the executive branch and then says as a member of the executive branch he is not subject to the rules of the senate?
Dick Cheney was never in the Senate.
Oh and Oliver, the criticism of Hillary was limited to her role in the health care task force. It was not “for much of President Clinton’s term” as you claim.
The Veep is head of the Senate. That’s why he gets to break ties.
It started with the health care task force and grew from there, Jay, there’s an entire con book industry devoted to supposedly documenting the growing power of the eeeeevil Hillary Clinton.
Well, here’s one difference: in theory, Karl Rove can be fired. Kinda hard to “fire” a First Lady, especially one who touted herself as a “two for one” co-president…
Rove has also passed some vetting — note he has a very high security clearance, a fact that has several of the Plame/Wilson supporters upset.
In fact, Rove has a higher security clearance than Sandy Berger…
J.
Why are the Plame/Wilson supporters upset, though? Is it because Bush promised to punish anybody “involved,” and despite Rove’s clear “involvement,” absolutely nothing was done to him?
I’ve mentioned this elsewhere: Valerie Plame testified as to a lot of different GOP talking points on her and Joe Wilson. If you still believe she’s lying, then present evidence and try her for perjury, because she was under oath to Congress when she spoke. If you can’t or won’t do this, then let your talking points go.
Spider, I wasn’t saying whether or not the Plame/Wilson supporters were correct or not. I was simply answering Oliver’s question about the difference between Karl Rove and First Lady Hillary Clinton.
The points you raise are not really germane to the issue at hand — that to compare Hillary and Rove is superficial at best, and insipid partisan hackery at worst.
J.
Wasn’t Rove one of the guys telling reporters Valerie Plame was with the CIA? I’m not sure he deserves that security clearance anymore.
Jay, I’m sorry, my bad. I guess I haven’t been tracking the comings and goings of Dick Cheney. If he never actually enters the Senate to perform his one constituitonally appointed duty, it is something I just was not aware of.
that to compare Hillary and Rove is superficial at best, and insipid partisan hackery at worst.
They’re both the Presidents bitch.
When Rove takes over (and royally screws up) a task force designed to completely revamp healthcare in the US (without the input of physicians), then you will hear some squawking about Karl…
Until then, its apples and oranges
False promises, pedromd07. Thous shalt hear no squawking about Karl, for Karl hath never done anything wrong ever. The only time the GOP has harsh words about Karl is when he fucks up and loses Congress.
Given you don’t squawk about the entire Iraq Occupation fuckup, I doubt there is much the Bush administration could do to make you squawk.