Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Karl Rove Likes What He Sees ....By GQ Editors

men.style.com — With his new gig at Fox and a seven-figure political memoir in the works, Karl Rove has officially crossed over from shadowy 'Wizard of Oz' territory to somewhat approachable public personality. But as Lisa DePaulo finds out, that doesn't mean he's any less…pointed with his opinions

Bury

Gandalff 113 days ago, made popular 112 days ago

269 diggs
digg it

163 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

AllINeed, on 04/03/2008, -15/+7How sweet, he looks like he's having fun in this picture.
- JettaMan, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Here's his best quote in the article about Hillary and Obama: "You know, when both she and he, who are free traders by instinct, went to Ohio and said, "We're gonna renegotiate NAFTA," when they know that (a) there's no provision to renegotiate NAFTA, and (b) the Canadians and the Mexicans are not gonna want to renegotiate NAFTA, and (c) when both of them understand that trade liberalization, particularly with our neighbors, has been to our economic advantage, who are they kidding?"
Iconoclast25, on 04/03/2008, -28/+32Extraordinarily astute political operative - I look forward to reading his book.
- vault, on 04/03/2008, -15/+14Same here...would be nice if he got a column somewhere, too.
- AlienClown, on 04/03/2008, -11/+9His book will most likely be willed with political wisdon, but for some reason it feels wrong that someone is supporting him (giving him the opportunity to make more money)
- Ravatar, on 04/03/2008, -10/+16Extraordinarily secretive criminal is more like it. I'd still like to know where those emails went, from his white house addresses to the illegal 3rd party ones.
- CTK14A, on 04/03/2008, -5/+7For *****'s sake please get it from the public library.
- MWeather, on 04/03/2008, -3/+13Save yourself the time and just read some Machiavelli.
- JettaMan, on 04/03/2008, -3/+1Wow, I've never read a reporter insult someone so much in the first few paragraphs. Did the reporter make sure to find every last flaw about Rove? The media is becoming so biased these days it's almost comical. Democrats own the media.
- SoxSweepAgain, on 04/03/2008, -1/+4Rove is filth. Reading his book is going to be like reading the autobiography of Machiavelli; a good insight into diabolism.
  - kyyled, on 04/06/2008, -0/+1Would anyone happen to know who he was talking about when he said "I got a guy, lives around the corner from us in Washington, who had a prominent role for six months in the Reagan administration, and he's still living off of it twenty-some-odd years later. I don't intend to do that." ?
patpl22391, on 04/03/2008, -22/+11Rove, as a digger I am suppose to hate you, but all I can do is congratulate you on all your success!
dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -8/+27I wouldn't have expected GQ to interview Karl Rove, let alone do a interview that was as decent as that one. Good read.
- yakski, on 04/03/2008, -5/+6Actually it was a piss poor interview since there were never any tough questions asked... it was more like lets give this guy a forum in our magazine to speak and spread more of his philosophy rather than a lets ask the tough questions that he never gets asked. It pretty much was a puff piece.
  - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -3/+3Please tell what you were expecting them to ask...because I get the feeling your idea of a "tough interview" is weighted questions and bomb-throwing.
    - yakski, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2The interviewer let him answer in short yes/no/yeah/ok/good/bad answers without explanation. She let him weasel out of answering any of the tough questions without comeback questions. There was no call on any of the lies he spewed even though they are clearly lies. Iraq was barely touched upon, the Bush scandals were barely touched upon, the economic catastrophe in the US was not even mentioned... it is a puff piece pure and simple. Rove knew it would be a puff piece that is why he agreed to the interview (and showed up late of course).
      - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2"The interviewer let him answer in short yes/no/yeah/ok/good/bad answers without explanation. She let him weasel out of answering any of the tough questions without comeback questions. There was no call on any of the lies he spewed even though they are clearly lies."
        Examples please.
      - yakski, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2"I did", "A lot", "Yeah", "Right, oh sure","No", "Yes", "No, nope, nope, nope".... and the list goes on and on of the short non-responsive type answers. The lies.. he did help the administration lie to the American people on the need to go to war in Iraq... he did lead the lies on promoting a non-existent WMD program in Iraq as dangerous to the US enough to justify the war... that was Karl Rove. Most of the interview was in fact spent on discussing Rove's opinion of Obama and Clinton... what a waste of space... who cares what a Republican thinks about a Democratic race... who cares how he spins it to make Republicans look better... His lies about Don Siegelman and CBS went unchallenged... he was given the opportunity to spew but no return questions were asked.... This was a puff piece pure and simple... its was written to give a promo to Rove and his book.. It was poor journalism at best and most likely just a promo device for a new book.
      - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2""I did", "A lot", "Yeah", "Right, oh sure","No", "Yes", "No, nope, nope, nope"...."
        Wow you're really grasping at straws there. The first two were in response to her asking him about his book. You want the reporter to go hardball asking him how much money he sold his book for? Please. When he said "Yeah" is was affirming a point in her question. He then let her finish it and answered it. Same thing with "Right, oh sure". He discussed the issue he was responding to at length in the next two questions. And "No, nope, nope, nope" was him kidding around publicizing his personal views on Hilary Clinton. Come on. You're a real liberal spin doctor in the making cherry-picking words out of what people say and trying to generalize them to make some stupid point like that.
        
        "The lies.. he did help the administration lie to the American people on the need to go to war in Iraq... he did lead the lies on promoting a non-existent WMD program in Iraq as dangerous to the US enough to justify the war... that was Karl Rove."
        If you have proof of those lies I would love to see it (the whole country might want to see that secretive proof you and your far left buddies are hiding, actually). You see what you wanted was bomb-throwing. You wanted the interviewer to assault Rove with unsubstantiated allegations. That may be the far left's idea of a good interview, but to legitimate journalists and political figures its just dirty.
        
        "Most of the interview was in fact spent on discussing Rove's opinion of Obama and Clinton... what a waste of space... who cares what a Republican thinks about a Democratic race..."
        A lot of people do. Rove is possibly the most successful and brilliant political strategist of our time, whether you agree with his views or not. He's led campaigns to win the presidency twice. His opinion on the current Presidential election is as valuable as anyones.
        
        "His lies about Don Siegelman and CBS went unchallenged..."
        Once again if you have proof that he was lying I'd love to see it. The reporter asked him about the situation and he gave his side of the story. This was a GQ reporter, she wasn't equipped to grill him about it and for you to expect that is ridiculous.
      - relic180, on 04/03/2008, -0/+1@dan222555
        
        Wasn't his point that this was a puff piece? And all his claims were trying to work toward that. So for you to say "This was a GQ reporter, she wasn't equipped to grill him about it", justifies his primary claim.
        
        Dunno why I replied, but I just noticed that.
      - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2I still wouldn't call it a "puff piece" just because it didn't get deep into things like that. It's an expectedly lighthearted piece to an extent, but it's certainly not the "piss poor interview" he is portraying it as. It was still interesting and valuable to read. My main issue is with why he thinks it was a "puff piece". Because the reason he thinks it's a puff piece is because the interviewer didn't engage in far-left bomb-throwing. His idea of a good interview with Rove is the interviewer calling Rove a liar and assaulting him with unsubstantiated claims launched by the far-left. That's the reason he doesn't like this interview, plain and simple.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1If you think asking him questions about candidates from the opposing party instead of the debacles of his own party and his own illegal and unethical activities is somehow a good interview then you have extremely low standards of what a good interview is all about. Sadly you obviously care little for ethics, morality, or intelligent thought... just go back to watching Faux for their "news" and that show where you have to decide which kid sings less worse than the others.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2"If you think asking him questions about candidates from the opposing party instead of the debacles of his own party"
        Compared to the Democratic party right now the Republican party isn't a story. We've got our nominee, we're just gearing up for November. Meanwhile the Democratic party is in the midst of a hard fought primary process that is on the verge of tearing the party apart. Journalists are going to go for the story. That's what the average reader wants to read about. The average reader doesn't want to read the interviewer assaulting him with unsubstantiated far-left allegations about events of the past that have no effect on the average person or on the current political happenings in the country. The only people that want to see that are you and your rawstory loving far-left buddies.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1You are hilarious... you just cannot wrap your brain around the fact that this was a puff piece where there were no serious questions asked of Rove... I have never mentioned rawstory so you are just LYING period when it comes to me.. therefore you lack integrity. You lump me as far-left and yet you know nothing about me... you are pathetic. If the 'average reader' is as moronically brain dead as you that would explain the pandering of this interviewer... but I think most readers are not so pathetic and want real hard questions asked.. no intelligent reader wants to read the retorts to the soft balls this reporter threw at Rove.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2"I have never mentioned rawstory so you are just LYING period when it comes to me."
        I can see what you Digg, and it's very obvious where you stand.
        
        Why can't you just admit that no interview with Rove would ever be satisfying to you unless the interviewer was throwing far left bombs at him?
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1You are just sad ... compared to your right wing diggs and religious diggs well what else is there to say ... you are just a sad apologist for whatever right winger nut jobs spout.. just look at your icon "peace through superior firepower"... you wish to kill to win no matter the right or wrong, morality or justice.... your icon states it all ... truth is your victim.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2"you wish to kill to win no matter the right or wrong, morality or justice....your icon states it all"
        Quite a conclusion based on a tongue and cheek icon. "You put a an amusing picture next to your name so you're a natural born killer"....the old slippery slop....that's what that is.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2slippery slope* in case you were going to go after me for typos now. This stupid ***** website has so many errors I can't even edit my posts anymore.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1Sadly you chose that icon, so clearly this is something you believe in .... your right wing prejudice is clear and apparent.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2"your right wing prejudice is clear and apparent."
        How is holding a certain set of political beliefs a "prejudice"? And what are you suggesting by pointing out that I have right-wing beliefs? It's not a secret....I'm not trying to hide it, so what's your point?
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1Your rhetoric is self defeating... your love of Rove sadly prevents you from actually evaluating the article intelligently or objectively... when the reporter allows him to attack the Democratic politicians you think that is somehow a good article... sad.. when the reporter tries to ask a few questions of more relative importance you somehow think that his lies and non-responsiveness is ok... Rove led the lies on both Iraq and the non-existent link of Al-Qaeda to Saddam... It is sad that you think ignoring these facts and not questioning him on them is somehow a good thing.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2You're just wrong. I don't love the Rove....I neither love nor hate him. I liked the article because it was interesting. You on the other hand, didn't like the article because you hate Rove. So what you described is your behavior.
        
        "Rove led the lies on both Iraq and the non-existent link of Al-Qaeda to Saddam... It is sad that you think ignoring these facts and not questioning him on them is somehow a good thing."
        If those were facts you could prove them to me right now....but you can't.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1Gee ... you could read the Washington Post or the New York Times... or... well just about everyplace you can find articles on Rove and these issues... you do know how to use Google right? Probably not in your case.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2I can find all the articles in the world but none of them will prove that what you said is fact, because that proof doesn't exist. There's no proof Rove lied about anything. If that proof existed you could link me to it right now.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1There were no WMDs ... Rove promoted this idea that there were ... hello ...McFly ..!!! There was no link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam... Rove promoted this idea that there was. These are what is known as LIES ... Sorry you are so dense as to not know this.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2lie -n: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;
        
        They're only lies if you can prove to me he had "deliberate intent to deceive". Otherwise you're just alleging that he lied, it's unproven. I'm sorry you lack a basic understanding of what it means to lie.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1Sadly your lack of intelligent thinking is showing itself... "Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain…if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh." A typical lie told submitted by Rove to be spread during the 2000 campaign for president.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1And further "In August 2002, Rove was chairing the White House Iraq Group, whose mission was to “develop a strategy for publicizing the White House’s assertion that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.”" The truth was hardly his concern... only starting a war.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2"Sadly your lack of intelligent thinking is showing itself..."
        My lack of intelligent thinking? You can't distinguish between ALLEGATIONS and FACTS. All of these things you are quoting are just people alleging things. There's no hard evidence to support any of it.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1You obviously do not care for facts... read a little .. read the Wikipedia article on Rove.. it is hilarious what dirty tricks he has employed, how he has purposely lied and misconstrued ... from hiding from the Vietnam war draft, to stealing opponents letter-head and distributing falsehoods on it, to his lack of religious convictions while punditing fundamentalist religious baloney for GW... his chronic lack of truthfulness/lies is extraordinarily revealing of his true character. He was present at the meetings when G Tenet told GW there was no proof of WMD or an Iraq connections to 9/11 and was told by GW to make sure he comes back with some and yet Rove somehow does not know this... bad memory??? .. not likely.. he was already in charge of the WHIG committee before ANY evidence was brought back by Tenet who obviously told GW what GW told him to find .. sure .. yeah .. right .. he was totally surprised when no WMDs were found.... rrrright!!/(sarcasm).
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2Sigh...more allegations you can't support with evidence. You don't seem to get it...
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1Apparently you are not willing to read anything that will disturb your little fantasy.. read the Wikipedia complete with references... read 'Bush's Brain' complete with references, read Woodward's books complete with references... ahhh facts ... you care little for these. Go back to your safe right wing nut haven and bomb something to bring 'peace'..
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2Here's some reading for you: get a dictionary and look up ALLEGATION
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1Here is something for you to look up in the dictionary, 'facts' ... no allegations here .. the fact is that Rove hid from the draft... the fact is that he was involved in all meetings with Bush over Iraq and WMD and the lack of evidence.. the fact is that he admitted to stealing and lying early in his career... the fact is that he admits he in not religious and yet has promulgated GW's religiousity... the fact is that he told Libby to spread the word on Valerie Plame... facts for all to see ... but then facts are not anything you care about.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2If they're facts then you can prove them. So proceed to supplying the proof please.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1All the references are there for you to read... your complete fundamental inability to even care to read them is proof of your inability to move beyond the lies you choose to believe.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1Where are these references? You haven't linked to anything.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1Duuuuuuuhhh,,, learn to read ... they were 3 prominent ones listed for you... you must be too lazy to do more than point and click...
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1"Go read this and go read that" is not providing proof of anything. I want links or word for word quotes that prove every allegation you listed. I'll make it explicitly clear:
        
        "the fact is that Rove hid from the draft..."
        I want proof Rove purposely evaded the draft. (Good luck finding that, because if it existed he'd have been prosecuted)
        
        "the fact is that he was involved in all meetings with Bush over Iraq and WMD and the lack of evidence.."
        I want proof (some kind of document, or a personal admission) that proves Karl Rove (or President Bush for that matter) didn't honestly believe Iraq had WMDs.
        
        "the fact is that he admitted to stealing and lying early in his career..."
        If you're referring to the incident when he was 19 and stole some campaign flyers then you're really grasping at straws. He's since apologized for that. If that's you're main case against him it's pretty weak. You didn't do anything stupid when you were 19 years old (or you don't expect to do anything stupid when you're 19 years old)?
        
        "the fact is that he admits he in not religious and yet has promulgated GW's religiousity..."
        That's just untrue. From his own mouth: "I'm a Christian. I go to church. I'm an Episcopalian." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293795,00.html
        
        "the fact is that he told Libby to spread the word on Valerie Plame..."
        You need to get your "facts" straight. Libby wasn't responsible for the Plame leak. Richard Armitage ADMITTED he leaked her identity. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... Federal prosecutors found nothing to prove Rove had done anything wrong, so how is it you have found proof of that, yet they couldn't?
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1You are just too plain frakking LAZY, lazy, lazy... I gave you 3 references and you are just too plain lazy to even google them, sadly that is indicative of your thought process.. The wiki article is real easy duuuuuuuuuuuuuh... here you go slow guy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove ... can you handle that or do I need to click the mouse for you also... Rove being religious you use Faux new... come on .. give me a break... they are just sad... try this quote from Rove.. "In their book The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power, James Moore and Wayne Slater identify Rove as an agnostic.[89] Slater reaffirmed this claim in a National Public Radio interview.[90]" of course later Rove would deny it but other people also confirm it .. "Last spring, Karl Rove was outed by atheist superstar Christopher Hitchens as a fellow nonbeliever. "He doesn't shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, "I'm not fortunate enough to be a person of faith."" .. and " As for the Plame scandal, Rove was instrumental both in initiating the leak through others and actually telling subordinates that we need to do something about Plame (in retaliation for him telling the truth about the GW/Rove lie on Nigeria yellow cake uranium). And while Armitage was ONE of the many people in GWs admin that exposed Plame, Libby was another one that also spoke to reporters about Plame being a spy thus exposing her... you need to get your facts straight.. all of the facts not just the selective ones. As for guilt, federal prosecutors are appointees of GW firstly and secondly the law in question has yet to be used to bring anyone to justice so there is no precedent, prosecutors are always wary of bringing charges on laws never before challenged. And of course we all know what happened to the VERY guilty Libby... GW let him off...
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1OH yeah.. for the lazy.. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/cia.leak/in ... Rove also leaked Plame's name..
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1Once again you're incapable of distinguishing between facts and allegations.
        
        "try this quote from Rove.. "In their book The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power, James Moore and Wayne Slater identify Rove as an agnostic.[89] Slater reaffirmed this claim in a National Public Radio interview.[90]""
        That's not a quote from Rove you idiot, that's an ALLEGATION from two guys who wrote a book about him. As is the other quote. By your logic if I wrote a book and alleged in it that Barack Obama was a Muslim, and then when asked he said, "No, I'm a Christian" you would believe me over him.
        
        "As for the Plame scandal, Rove was instrumental both in initiating the leak through others and actually telling subordinates that we need to do something about Plame (in retaliation for him telling the truth about the GW/Rove lie on Nigeria yellow cake uranium). And while Armitage was ONE of the many people in GWs admin that exposed Plame, Libby was another one that also spoke to reporters about Plame being a spy thus exposing her... you need to get your facts straight.. all of the facts not just the selective ones."
        There you go again making ALLEGATIONS you can't prove. And that CNN article proves none of them, neither does the Wikipedia article or any other ***** you've mentioned. The CNN article is Novak making an ALLEGATION that Rove confirmed Plame's identity. It's not been proven, and investigators found Rove's role was not criminal.
      - yakski, on 04/05/2008, -0/+1Once again you lie... I gave you both a book reference and a personal reference and yet you choose only the book reference, which by the way referenced a personal discussion with Rove on the issue.. so much for your allegations. More to the point Rove never denied these references... all he said was that he belonged to a church and went to church.. I know many many people who are doubters/agnostic and do the exact same thing. Politically he cannot admit it publicly even though he has admitted it privately.. sorry you lose.
        And once again you lie about Plame... these are not allegations they are personal statements by witnesses... according to your logic nobody could ever be convicted of a crime since all evidence would fall into the category of allegations... You are pathetic and your thinking incredibly flawed... Novak is a credible source. All the sources mentioned are verified sources .. all you have is a statement from Rove where he really does not deny the conversations took place. And why anyone would believe Rove is quite incredible.. You are just sad.
madfrogurt, on 04/03/2008, -19/+14While I think Rove is a central figure in the worst political shift of the last 30 years, I respect him as being a genius at manipulation of public perception. He's not a blind ideologue or dumb by any stretch of the imagination. While I wouldn't mind reading his book for his take on the last eight years, I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay money for what might be a combination of his honest opinions mixed with further lies to reinforce a false history.
- Stereotype77, on 04/03/2008, -7/+21Respect? ***** that. Hitler was great a many things, but I don't respect him. I want that POS to burn..
- rcook18, on 04/25/2008, -0/+1Karl Rove is a sociopath.
flip2trip, on 04/03/2008, -7/+15The question is--When is 60 Minutes going off the air? I remember back in the day they were hard-hitting investigative journalists --I even remember the hilarious SNL skit with Mike Wallace (correct me if I'm wrong) was conducting an interview with a crooked business owner played by Martin Short and him smoking that cigarette with the ridiculously long ash on the end and Martin shaking and sweating under the barrage of questions coming from Mike and Martin looks at the camera after he's answered so many questions and says, "it's not me, it's him right?" Now 60 minutes IS the joke. CBS's news department has turned into the National Enquirer of broadcast news.
dariendynamite, on 04/03/2008, -13/+32"Do you think Fox News is fair and balanced?
I do. I think they go out of their way to be fair and tough in questioning. I'm really impressed with the people I've gotten to know. Brit Hume is a very bright person; Chris Wallace has got a lot of integrity."

yeah right.
Buried...
- brufleth, on 04/03/2008, -7/+7Fox hired a guy who was INSTRUMENTAL in electing and re-electing a born again "divine rightist" president and has tentative ties to organizations which spread false information during those elections. How is it fair and balanced to hire someone who quite obviously is biased and has questionable ethics?
  
  It is a stupid question (what else was he going to say?) and this article should be buried as inaccurate and lame.
  - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -2/+3Karl Rove was hired as a commentator....his very job is to give his opinion. There's no journalistic mandate that says commentators are supposed to be unbiased. It's journalists (like the two people Rove mentioned) that are supposed to be unbiased, and those two are both extremely fair. Journalists for other news outlets are far more biased and unfair than either of those two.
    
    And if you ever see Rove on FNC (which I doubt you will because like most people who attack it you probably have never watched it) I think you'll find that he is almost always "balanced" out by being accompanied/preceded/followed by a liberal commentator commenting on the same issues.
    - yakski, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Faux News is so incredibly biased you have to be blind not to see it ... the fact that you do not speaks volumes about your inability to be able to discern what is and what is not considered biased reporting. Neither journalist is even remotely fair... they constantly spin news and slant their reporting ... it is sad that you cannot see this. It is also amazing that anyone would even consider there being liberal commentators on the show... what you call liberal is actually someone pretending to be liberal who spews illogical things on purpose in order to make people perceive liberals in a bad light automatically. They are on the show purely to denigrate the opposite viewpoint by purposefully making it look bad.
      - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2That's a cute delusion you got going there, shame it's not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
      - yakski, on 04/03/2008, -2/+2Wow what a comeback.. the evidence is very obvious.. all that is required is that you open your mind/eyes/brain... clearly that is asking too much of you.
      - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -2/+1If it's obvious you ought to be able to present it to me. You're making the argument, I'm not going to go out in search of evidence to prove YOUR argument. The burden of proof is entirely on you.
      - yakski, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Sadly it is obvious that facts are something you could care less about... to have to point out to you the obvious bias of Faux news when it is so painfully obvious to any intelligent unbiased person is proof alone of your incredibly short sighted bias. From the Obama bashing morning new show hosts to the basic fact that Rupert Murdoch who owns the joint is a notorious right wing (some would say Nazi loving) nutjob you have to be blind not to see the bias in just about every news related subject on Faux.
      - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1That's amusing because I'm sure you think rawstory.com, crooksandliars.com, huffingtonpost.com, and dailykos.com are just the most unbiased sources of news ever...
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1Ahhh the old retort with a totally ridiculous accusation ploy... I recognize that anywhere... sadly no intelligent response there.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1No intelligent response because it's true. I can see from your digging history you're an avid digger of crooksandliars and rawstory articles. So you commenting on journalistic bias is laughable.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1Sadly you lack intelligent thought and are now brought to lying... most of my digging history is related to science articles and the occasional rick-roll ....
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1No one's lying. You digg articles from rawstory and crooksandliars and then you try and lecture me on journalistic bias...
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1Once again compared to your right wing diggs and religious diggs I am completely moderate... your rantings however prove your lack of intelligent thinking.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1It's not about the opinions of the articles, it's about the legitimacy of the sources.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1Unfortunately your digging history demonstrates your complete lack of objectivity... you are a shill for the right wing nut jobs... sadly intelligent thought is outside your bounds.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1"Unfortunately your digging history demonstrates your complete lack of objectivity"
        Who says I'm supposed to be objective? I'm not a judge....I'm not a journalist, where is this mandate for objectivity coming from? I digg things I agree with or find interesting or worthwhile, as do most people on Digg. Since when is anybody supposed to Digg things objectively?
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1Objectivity is critical whenever one is trying to analyze anything... this interview you think was great because you love Rove... your bias is clear, you are not objective. I, however, read the article more objectively and found the questions completely lacking ... therefore the 'puff piece' label. It is sad that you think an opportunity interviewing Rove should be wasted by allowing him to foist his opinions about his political party opponents rather than engage him in discussion about his past policies, his practices, and his political maneuverings. It was a puff piece and your defense of it is atrocious.
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -1/+2"I, however, read the article more objectively"
        That's a laugh.
      - yakski, on 04/04/2008, -0/+1The laugh is you and your inability to think clearly... no .. that is just sad.
    - brufleth, on 04/03/2008, -2/+3Fox News is on all the time when I'm at the gym. Rove is definitely not "balanced out." Also, hiring someone for their opinion is all well and good but when you're taking on a contributor who is of ill repute then you degrade the overall quality.
      
      And if you're looking for proof of FNC bias just watch Out Foxed or any number of other videos or articles which analyze the programming. The channel is right leaning (where's the counter to the O'Reily Factor?) and that's fine until they claim to be fair and balanced and/or people like you try to paint it as such.
Stereotype77, on 04/03/2008, -19/+28***** Karl Rove.

***** him till he dies...
- diggSJaustin, on 04/03/2008, -4/+8Now that's the kind of even-handed political commentary that makes this great public forum succeed.
- empraptor, on 04/03/2008, -7/+2No thanks.
  
  But I'll try to travel back in time to ***** his mom before his date of conception and keep her away from his dad. I'm pretty sure Rove isn't half-asian so this should work out.
- JimmySpaza, on 04/03/2008, -5/+2What compassion, empathy, and good-spiritedness these liberals have. They are truly a model of well-adjusted, tempered behavior and thinking. NOT!
  - empraptor, on 04/03/2008, -2/+4Some people don't have a sense of humor. It's the only explanation I have for my previous comment in this thread being dugg down.
- dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -5/+2Insightful.
- BabyWookie, on 04/03/2008, -0/+2***** Karl Rove? Wasn't that Jeff Gannon's old job?
tufftugg, on 04/03/2008, -10/+25 He ended up in the right spot. Faux news will allow him a platform to continue the public manipulation.
FISHLEGBOOTS, on 04/03/2008, -12/+14Any chance of a "magic bullet" resurfacing for this dickmouth?
liquidmetalband, on 04/03/2008, -17/+19Karl Rove is criminal scum. I will smile the day he rots in a prison cell, while getting anally raped by wild dogs.
- jd72277, on 04/03/2008, -4/+3show me this prison for dogs and men
  - Rotzooi, on 04/03/2008, -7/+2The dogs need to be smuggled in.
    In people's buttholes.
- Sean42, on 04/03/2008, -0/+4What do you have against dogs?
- dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -5/+2I'm sure the liberals are glad to know they've got intellectuals like you on their side.
- SoxSweepAgain, on 04/03/2008, -1/+2I'd rather he be found in a closet in flagrante delicto with said dogs. Trying to find his other testicle. That one the dogs ripped off, slowly.
Rotzooi, on 04/03/2008, -13/+17Karl Rove deserves AIDS of the face.
- jd72277, on 04/03/2008, -1/+4would that look like a super intense cold sore?
  - Rotzooi, on 04/03/2008, -4/+1I just hope it's painful and contagious.
- 2612, on 04/03/2008, -5/+2Now that's intelligent social discourse. Bravo, Rotzooi! Your wisdom is surpassed only by your medical knowledge.
- SoxSweepAgain, on 04/03/2008, -1/+3He should develop whatever cancer that poor French woman developed.
inajeep, on 04/03/2008, -5/+12It's sad and scary that his opinion is one of the few in the country that really effects the country. Decisions and directions that this man has given effect and will continue to reverberate through the world in our foreseeable future. Now he's on Fox? GQ does an interview with him? What are you up to Karl? No good.
kidcodea, on 04/03/2008, -12/+12dugg for:
"It seems like you're talking about authenticity here. Are you saying Obama is inauthentic?
I'm saying that he has adopted two themes for his campaign that are not supported by his actions."

because its 100% correct, no matter how much obamabots digg me down.
- WasabiBomb, on 04/03/2008, -3/+5How 'bout if we digg you down because you're wrong? Jeez, do you really expect Rove to say good things about the Democrat that stands the best chance of winning? Of COURSE he's going to say that Obama's got faults, whether they're true or not.
jd72277, on 04/03/2008, -1/+9Obviously he is not a reader of GQ, as his tie should only come to the bottom of his belt buckle.
- Rotzooi, on 04/03/2008, -4/+4He is trying to hide his tiny little hardon that he gets every time someone gives him a platform to spew his soul-destroying rhetoric.
Search153, on 04/03/2008, -5/+1First the Fat Boys break up, now every day I wake up, somebody got a problem with Rove!
dumpyhumpy, on 04/03/2008, -9/+13Turdblossom is a political genius.... and one of the biggest pieces of ***** ever...
migbike, on 04/03/2008, -6/+11I like how once the questions get difficult (towards the end) he's all "gotta go!"
- SillyRabbits, on 04/03/2008, -3/+2Actually, it looks like once they started to get silly he decided to bail. And, a couple of ones prior to that it looks like she really hadn't done her homework. It was GQ, it's not like it was the WSJ. When a GQ reporter starts straying into the area of legal intricacies, where even constitutional experts don't all agree, it's probably a good time to leave - nothing positive will ever come of that.
f4st4word, on 04/03/2008, -11/+13Karl Rove has screwed this country up, and it is sickening that he not only has not retired in disgrace but instead has a public forum.

Five or six years ago the failure of Rove's policies was debatable, but now it is just a fact. Iraq, Katrina, the war on terror, tax policy, transparency in government - all EPIC FAIL during the Bush Administration, and you can thank Rove in large part.

If this man is not going to go to jail, he at least should be discredited enough to be denied entry into the pundit class.
dupswapdrop, on 04/03/2008, -8/+12Why is this turd not in jail?
diggSJaustin, on 04/03/2008, -6/+16For those of us who bothered to take twenty minutes and actually read the interview, this is absolutely worth the digg. Fascinating stuff.
- neozeed, on 04/03/2008, -4/+7How is the shilling going?
kurtwinter, on 04/03/2008, -9/+14I really don't give a ***** what he has to say as a private citizen except for "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". Anything else is superfluous from this war criminal.
- MWeather, on 04/03/2008, -1/+1Is that how the procedure works at the Hague?
neozeed, on 04/03/2008, -8/+8Rove is the pinnacle of what is wrong with America. There are gallows out there with his name on it. I can’t wait until the rope has his chicken neck in it.
offspring06, on 04/03/2008, -9/+10Karl Rove and Fox News goes together like Nazis and Hitler.
- JimmySpaza, on 04/03/2008, -5/+2It was only a matter of time before some liberal invoked the whole Nazi-like paradigm. [sigh]
stonewaljacksn, on 04/03/2008, -4/+7Karl Rove is the most brilliant evil person of our generation. He deserves to be studied, if only for the reason of learning from past mistakes.
- curtisag, on 04/03/2008, -4/+2Look, someone who isn't all caught up in their own emotions and has an inquiring and inquisitive mind. Amazing!
p0s3r, on 04/03/2008, -9/+9What crimes did he commit? Name them. Especially, the war "crimes" you people say he committed.
- Sean42, on 04/03/2008, -6/+9helping to oust cia operatives for political points because they had the audacity to use FACTS and not their 'gut' feeling.
  - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -3/+4And now the proof please...
- JimmySpaza, on 04/03/2008, -10/+5The liberals cannot...because they have nothing but emotions, feelings, and hot air to justify their diatribes.
  
  Check out the posts above. There are no specific charges, just bad language and evil wishes. It's typical and lame, I know, but those are the leftists for ya.
Sean42, on 04/03/2008, -4/+6This asshat should donate all of the proceeds to the disabled vets injured during the iraq fiasco that he helped cheerlead for.
Oh, and he is a major douche-bag.
exronin, on 04/03/2008, -4/+8What a toolbag.
emarble17, on 04/03/2008, -8/+3God I love Karl Rove. He's such a brilliant campaign manager and an excellent politician. Separate your feelings towards his policy and recognize his genius.

BTW http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g274/emarble17/C ...
- charlietuna, on 04/03/2008, -1/+5Good way to separate your feelings toward his policy... say you love him. I doubt you are as impartial as you claim.
- Sean42, on 04/03/2008, -0/+3Yeah, and hitler was a great motivator.... that doesn't mean i want to get to know him or buy his dumb-ass book. Don't be star-struck by douchebags.
Metanoid, on 04/03/2008, -2/+5hmm, what was it someone once said about "the banality of evil"?
dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -8/+8As usual the liberals have brought their esteemed intellectual discourse to this topic, with such gems as:

"***** Karl Rove.

***** him till he dies..."

"But I'll try to travel back in time to ***** his mom before his date of conception and keep her away from his dad. I'm pretty sure Rove isn't half-asian so this should work out."

"Any chance of a "magic bullet" resurfacing for this dickmouth?"

"Karl Rove is criminal scum. I will smile the day he rots in a prison cell, while getting anally raped by wild dogs."

"Karl Rove deserves AIDS of the face."

"Why is this turd not in jail?"

"Karl Rove and Fox News goes together like Nazis and Hitler."

"What a toolbag."

"I can’t wait until the rope has his chicken neck in it."

Barvo liberals for elevating the conversation to an unfathomable level of intelligence.
- Metanoid, on 04/03/2008, -4/+4Barvo indeed -- barvo to YOU, dan222555, for exposing the liberal know-nothings! Barvo for your own (probably) stunning political acumen. And when the TRUE patriots have finally finished drowning habeus corpus in the bathtub, you'll be oh-so-glad you didn't call them ANY silly names, not ONE! Barvo!
  - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -6/+3I see what you did there. That's cute. Instead of arguing what I said you took the cheap way out and poked fun at a typing mistake. Right out of the liberal playbook...
    - f4st4word, on 04/03/2008, -1/+5I see what you did there. You pretended that Metanoid didn't make a point about hating Karl Rove for raping habeus corpus by calling attention once again to your awesome spelling. Barvo!
      - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -4/+1"You pretended that Metanoid didn't make a point about hating Karl Rove for raping habeus corpus"
        He made a point that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made. Why am I going to argue something I didn't even bring up?
      - Metanoid, on 04/03/2008, -1/+4Funny, though, that you called me a liberal because I disagreed with you, implying that there are really only two perspectives one could approach the issues from. Of course, it is a lot easier to do that "Instead of arguing what I said" and all. How cute! And (wait for it...) 'right out of the conservative playbook', to boot. Ouch!
      - dan222555, on 04/03/2008, -3/+1I call it like I see it. Your response was stereotypically liberal. And there's nothing to argue....you didn't say anything relevant. I didn't say anything about Karl Rove. For all you know I could agree with you on that point. Here's a summary of what happened:
        
        Me: "Liberals sink intellectual discussion to disgusting lows."
        
        You: "bbbbut Karl Rove rapes Habeus Corpus!!1!!"
        
        Where's the connection? I don't see it. Your rant about Rove is just a strawman.
    - Metanoid, on 04/03/2008, -1/+3Wow, you're a dense one aren't you? But I'm sure you have some endearing qualities.
      
      You: Liberals say nasty stuff about Karl. Really nasty!
      Me: That's because he's a bad man who's done bad, bad things.
      
      Now, I'm done; you may have the last word. Sleep well, and dream of jack-boots!
      - dan222555, on 04/04/2008, -2/+1What you fail to realize is the two things are not connected. Whether or not he does bad things or not is irrelevant. That's still no reason to sink the discussion to the level those comments sink it to. Can we not discuss the issues in a mature manner? As evidenced by those comments and yours, liberals on digg.com have no interest in doing so.
MrTsLoveChild, on 04/03/2008, -5/+6the worship of Karl Rove as a "genius" makes me sick.
it's not hard to influence public opinion. it just comes down to how dirty you're willing to get. and he's filthy.
i'm not religious, but a little part of me hopes there is a hell and that he burns it in for eternity.
bigfatphony, on 04/03/2008, -4/+5This is what neocons consider "fascinating"? There was zero substance in that interview, not one iota. Just gossip. No wonder it's so easy to manipulate and delude conservatives, they have no idea what real information is.
- Tuxbunta, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1As opposed to the great information from rawstory that you liberals like to give us on digg. Right?
- obamayomama, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0You've lived up to your name admirably.
kpkpkp, on 04/03/2008, -2/+6Karl Rove is unforgivable
Rotzooi, on 04/03/2008, -2/+4Loving how all the extreme right-wingers are coming out of their Nazi-themed S&M basements to digg up Karl Rove stories.
Good to see some apologist nutjobs on here. Hi guys!
CableNewsie, on 04/04/2008, -1/+1Do you think Fox News is fair and balanced?

"I do. I think they go out of their way to be fair and tough in questioning. I'm really impressed with the people I've gotten to know. Brit Hume is a very bright person; Chris Wallace has got a lot of integrity."
heystoopid, on 04/05/2008, -2/+1The profits from the book will be truly peanuts at the claimed advance would need minimum sales of fifty million or more to break even and unlikely to reach paperback form undoubtedly either the tome will be pulped as mostly unsold trash fiction or end up in the one print run one dollar throw out bin in very short order within two or three months after initial publication !
revenueforlife, on 04/07/2008, -1/+1This is a rough crowd!
Tuxbunta, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2It's funny to see the hate at Rove. I look at it as proof of his art and genius. Keep going strong Rove.
submitdig, on 04/16/2008, -1/+0Amazing. A simple criminal speaks eloquently and fools fawn over him.
People give a criminal the time of day? I did for a few paragraphs. But he's a well-versed snake - he's the used car salesman you stay AWAY from. He'll rationalize his criminality (even in his own little pathetic mind) and charm the stupid beer-drinking, frat house/sorority whore house, "political geniuses" into believers.

Worthless, criminal piece of *****.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Karl Rove Likes What He Sees ....By GQ Editors

Login or register to add a comment