Karl Rove and Wife Divorce

Texas has granted a divorce to Karl Rove and his wife Darby. They've been married 24 years. A friend of his blames the split partly on the "stress and strain" of the White House years.

Maybe he just thinks he'll sell more books as a single man.

Rove’s 608-page memoir, “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight,” is due out from Simon & Schuster’s Threshold Editions on March 9.

< Leave Ben Nelson Alone! | Controlling Costs On The Backs Of The Middle Class >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just typing the name (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    "Karl Rove" makes me want to disinfect my keyboard.

    Another conservative, family-values divorce...that they're such good friends makes it all acceptable to the holier-than-thou crowd.

    Hey, at least they didn't say that the ongoing effort to legalize same-sex marriage proved to be too great a threat to their own, leaving them no choice but to divorce.

    Conservatives in CA are trying to (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    get a proposition on the ballot to outlaw divorce.  Perhaps this was a preemptive strike.

    I think that is a pro gay marriage group (none / 0) (#48)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    The hypocrisy and all.

    But, along the lines of be careful what you wish for, that initiative has the potential to draw a lot of support from social conservatives.....So, if progressives trying to cause mischief, and conservatives trying to outlaw immorality, band together, what odd things may follow.


    I love it... (none / 0) (#104)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:50:33 AM EST
    the prohibition of divorce might finally bring this situation to a head...and it would be damn fun to watch go down:)

    yech.... karl rove.... nuff said (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by desertswine on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:43:17 PM EST

    Y'know, I don't know whether to congratulate (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    him and his now-ex-wife, or to feel sorry for them.

    On the one hand, they are both free of the continued misery and unhappiness their now-extinct marriage placed upon their lives.  On the other hand, their being free of that misery and unhappiness seems an undeserved boon.

    Or, as someone wiser than I once said "I'm generous and merciful, but I'm neither so generous nor so merciful as to wish their misery to end."

    Karl Rove and Michaele Salahi together (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by JosephP on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:01:12 PM EST
    I just heard Karl Rove had gotten divorced today. So I was looking for some pictures of his ex-wife Darby.  I found this one---some hip cafe opening in 2002 that he attended:


    But look the last picture. Who else was at that thing with Karl?

    Michaele Salahi!

    (Back then she was "Michaela Holt").

    Very interesting!! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:36:01 PM EST
    Can't say I'm surprised.

    Rove is a sorry piece of crap. He was practicing (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Angel on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:14:38 PM EST
    his evil deeds in Texas long before anyone in DC ever heard of him, so I've known about him for much longer than most people.  I have prayed long and hard that he would get sent to jail for the rest of his life.  Lord, please hear my prayers.

    Devoted disciple (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 09:18:57 PM EST
    of Lee Atwater.  That's pretty much all that needs to be said about him.

    Love the spin: (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:14:42 PM EST
    They maintain a strong friendship, and they both feel that that friendship is a source of comfort and inspiration for their friends and family."


    Quite right. I have many gay friends (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:50:32 PM EST
    but I've never married any of them.

    C'mon out, Carl.


    You said it oldpro, not me...:) (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:08:47 PM EST
    didn't even know he was married, and made the same assumption as you.

    So much for that sanctity of marriage thing eh...shame on Karl for furthering the errosion of our moral fabric:)



    OT but definitely politics of crime: (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:46:41 PM EST
    Good (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:43:16 PM EST
    Too many--especially the San Diego and Orange County Sheriffs, and I recognize that this case involves the Coronado PD--are wannabe commandos....

    Lawsuits are necessary to keep them in line....


    Party's at Darbys! (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:52:57 PM EST

    Greenwald goes ballistic. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:40:29 PM EST
    More like (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kmblue on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:11:38 PM EST
    Greenwald points out the facts.

    Look at how shallow I am (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    I'm looking for a good party while she throws the bum out and I missed the issues :)  And they are huge.

    I wonder how many advance (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:53:11 PM EST
    copies the Scaife, Richardson, Koch, Olin et al foundations have ordered of Karl's indispensable memoir?

    No doubt the book will serve as a rallying, call-to-battle for conservatives. Like Uncle Tom's Cabin, with Karl running an underground railroad for  the runaway, persecuted Jack Abramoffs and Jeff Gannons of the country: fleeing across icy parking lots and up the backstairs with the ultra-liberal, MSM media in pursuit..

    Karl was a rogue for freedom before going rogue was in.


    Don't look now (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    but your venom is showing!

    Wouldn't the correct term be... (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:13:30 PM EST

    What is it about seeing (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:18:39 PM EST
    the word "Rove" in print that makes you more defensive than one of Sinatra's attack dogs, Jim?

    Actually I haven't seen such (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:49:24 PM EST
    misplaced venom since a mouse was spotted at Aunt Jane's Tea Party.

    The Orange calls to you doesn't (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:15:55 PM EST
    it Jim?  It says come to me Jim....I know you love me :)

    The orange???? (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:19:44 PM EST
    You got me there MT. And I apologize. I know it is no fun if you have to explain....

    But really, why the hatred of Rove??? All he did was conjure up Katrina and destroy New Orleans. Everything else is Bush's fault...

    Including the attack on NW 253!


    Sorry, but the dude's a slob IMO (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:25:12 PM EST
    I hate him like I hate the idea of herpes.  He used all that intelligence God granted him to give us the wedge politics that prevents us from being able to attend to the current crisis at hand in the way it needs to be.  He put the rubberstampers into power that allowed unbridled deregulation that has crashed the damned world and he's proud of it.  He enabled an administration that told outright lies to everyone that sent our soldiers to Iraq....my husband being one of them.  We have body bags and fresh graves at Arlington due to LIES and nothing but LIES....

    On the bright side (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:28:24 PM EST
    Maybe Darby can get some now.

    And so can Karl (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:46:28 PM EST
    even if that airport mens room spot did get blown up.

    Why are you making fun of the (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:17:05 PM EST
    sexual activities of some people? Do you have a problem with Gays and Lesbians?

    And before you answer consider that you just made a nasty snark about Rove possibly being gay.

    You can't have it both ways.


    I have a problem (3.00 / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    with a party of raving, sanctimonious hypocrites.

    Btw, How did your investigation of that blue state set-up of Sen Craig turn out; had any new leads lately?


    Speaking of (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 07:22:55 PM EST
    hypocrites, you can't denigrate Rove over being gay and claim that you support gay rights.

    If it is an insult to Rove to claim he is gay then it is an insult to any Gay.

    You cannot have it both ways.

    And before you answer remember that I have stated numerous times that as a Social Liberal I support Gay Rights including the right for anyone to marry anyone.


    And before (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 07:40:37 PM EST
    you start to parse, let me confirm the implied understanding that the parties involved be of legal age, etc., etc.

    Sure we can, because (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    the denigration of Rover is predicated not on his [alleged] gayness but rather on his personal and professional hypocrisy in wedging anti-gay this and anti-gay that as policies and then laws (of one flavor or another).  That, and his father was gay, yet he goes forward with the anti-gay this and that for which the Rethugs and their allies have become infamous.

    And, moreover, just the idea of this porcine conniver having to deal with [Republican] people walking up to him and calling him "f*ggot" to his face - and having to take it because it's true - makes me want to double over in laughter.  


    There were a thousand ways (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 09:31:50 PM EST
    to insult Rove without bringing up the subject of being gay as an insult.

    Which was clearly done.

    Look, you guys brought the subject up. Sorry but there's no wiggle room.


    No wiggle room between your ears (none / 0) (#112)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:48:39 AM EST
    that's for sure.

    Again, the point is, the extreme HYPOCRISY of people like Rove, Larry "Bojangles" Craig and the rest of the Save Terri and bomb 'em all to hell crowd.

    But, on second thought, maybe it isnt hypocrisy per se; it may be that what we're dealing with here is more like a form of undiagnosed, ambulatory schizophrenia brought on by a lethal brew of bad whiskey, fatty foods, too much sun and an overexposure to the "faith, not works" brand of theology.


    Is there something in the water that (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    makes you fail to understand that you didn't have to bring up gays and bathroom sex to attack Rove?

    The selection of your attack vehicle demonstrates your bias.

    Again. Examine your heart. Seek counseling.


    Karl and Larry and Ralph Reed (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 05:49:31 PM EST
    can take turns being Koufax and Roseboro as much as they want, with my blessing.

    Just stop telling others like them that they're destroying the sanctity of marriage and inviting God's wrath in the form of terrorist attacks.

    Is that too much to ask?


    You can tell them whatever (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:16:14 PM EST
    you want.

    Just admit that your attack on Rove as a Gay was also a smear on all Gays.

    And try to not do it again.


    I'll have you know (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 07:49:57 PM EST
    that Im a social liberal, as I've already reiterated numerous times at this site and I resent your implication.

    Try not to do it again. Or, as Karl would say, kill me softly with your love.


    And your point is that it is okay for (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 09:38:21 PM EST
    Jondee to make a nasty crack about gays as an insult to Rove??

    I repeat. You can't use that as an insult without insulting all gays.

    Maybe you and Jondee should get some counseling.


    Why do you think it (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:37:09 PM EST
    impossible to be against ALL such statenments?

    Trust me on this one (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:54:47 PM EST
    I have heard every excuse made by man to excuse them showing their true feelings.

    You know, it is my bed time so I will leave you with this simple question.

    If you didn't mean it as a slur, why did you do it?

    I think you and Jondee need to examine your own souls and attitudes.


    Good morning (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:30:59 AM EST
    Hundreds of words but the fact remains that you and Jondee use Rove's alleged gay sexual orientation as a smear.

    Now, if in your belief that if Rove is gay that is worthy of a smear, then you have a problem with the fact that some people are gay. Otherwise you wouldn't use it to attack Rove.

    As I said, you can Jondee need to examine your souls. I suggest counseling.


    We are evil on this site ;) (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:06:17 PM EST
    Okay Okay (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:12:33 PM EST
    So he also caused herpes....

    Now, tell me what the orange was, is or will be...


    And make me forget that every intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq had WMD's... I mean Bush and Rove together was some kinda slick.

    How in the world did Obama win????


    The Orange is Dkos (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:13:30 PM EST
    I figured you had been reading the Jane pile on over there.  See, it's okay if Joe Lieberman agrees with Norquist about anything.  That's fine and nobody expects Lieberman to suffer any consequence for that via Dem leadership to include the President.  If Jane Hamsher agrees with Grover though about something, hell hath no fury.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 07:29:20 PM EST
    I don't do KOS.... like I said, I Googled her name...

    Just call Kos (none / 0) (#72)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 08:32:12 PM EST
    "Orange Satan" or, if you're feeling verbose, "the Great Orange Satan" and then everyone will know.

    Don't call it that on twitter (none / 0) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 09:22:24 PM EST
    You can type it in a post like everybody and their dog in the blogosphere when they aren't on that blog........but don't tweet that because that's treason :)

    Cut the b.s (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:14:33 PM EST
    there were people right within our own CIA who questioned it.

    "Every intelligence agency in the world" And you people expect to be taken seriously.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 07:27:24 PM EST
    quit making excuses. And even better, quit giving after the fact claims..... Monday morning QBs are a dime a dozen....

    And Bush didn't even have a No Fly List...



    Well if Monica Crowley (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:22:35 PM EST
    filling in for Ann Coulter, who's donated her body to Tourettes research, says she's an ultra-liberal America-hater, she MUST be.

    It wasn't that it was a trick question (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:19:27 PM EST
    what it was is that the edited the damn interview to make her look stupid. Furthermore, as long as people act like that is acceptable behavior it will continue on and NEXT time the candidate that it happens to might be one YOU support.

    Fox News dosnt (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:26:08 PM EST
    do that kind of disengenuous, strategically clipped quotations, reframing out-of-context stuff constantly?

    What do you mean "next time"?


    Yeah I always like (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:30:26 PM EST
    the other guy did it first defense. It's a classic and reeks of maturity.

    And reality (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:33:40 PM EST
    and the reminder that politics in America has been a full-contact sport since, like, the 1820's.

    Rachel Jackson: (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:11:46 PM EST
    "They've dipped their arrows in wormwood and gall and sped them at me".

    Top that, Sarah.


    Me thinks... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    time was wasted unnecessarily then in the editing room over at GE c/o NBC:)

    It was the curled lip, (none / 0) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:34:01 PM EST
    the elevated nostril and the expression of utter contempt that betrayed the fact that it was intended as a "gotcha."  Palin had no problem seeing that, and neither should anybody else.

    It was a brilliant and fair question (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    Palin didn't answer it because she couldn't without betraying the right-wing, wacko stuff she reads....

    How hard would it have been to rattle off the local Alaska paper and the standard conservative and liberal publications of the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Washington Post, and the New York Times....

    Come on...she is a whacked-out ideologue who reads bizarre stuff or not at all.



    In your fantasy (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 09:13:54 PM EST
    of Palin as Godzilla.

    Really, why some folks have to make her into this monstrous caricature is beyond me.  She's a magnetic but basically garden-variety conservative semi-pol who shouldn't be let anywhere near the reins of national power, though she actually did pretty well in Alaska for the short time she was there.

    Interesting book you might want to read if you're at all interested in reality called "Sarah From Alaska" by a couple of reporters, one from CBS and one from <gasp> Fox.  Very even-handed and straight-up portrait and a good read if you're able to stand having a lot of the most cherished liberal/lefty myths about Palin's monstrousness busted.

    Like the idea that she doesn't/didn't/hasn't read anything but bizarre stuff.

    FWIW, I would also have refused to answer such a degrading and condescending question from a hostile and sneering interviewer, too.  I suspect most people with a shred of self-respect would be PO'd at such a question.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by cawaltz on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:05:36 AM EST
    yeah cuz we all know Olbermann is completely unbiased. hahahahahahahahaha. I'm sorry I couldn't say that with a straight face.......

    Olbermann is a shill (none / 0) (#109)
    by cawaltz on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 10:27:53 AM EST
    for the left side. Anyone who watched him contort himself into a pretzel over FISA knows he's the left's very on version of FOX.

    I also am smart enough to know all about editors and how the big magic TV box works.

    As for stupidity, I'd wager my intelligence against yours any day and twice on Fridays. The fact that I recognize that Olbermann for what he is is PROOF enough for me on that statement.


    Olbermann is the Left's version (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:19:52 PM EST
    of certain talk -how right wingers, I suppose....

    Good, the Left needed some flamethrowers....Olbermann would do well to burnish his credibility...


    Not POed.... (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:07:19 PM EST
    Pols love to talk about themselves....If someone asked them, it is a gimme--a chance to talk about whatever they want...

    If someone asked me, I would love to answer....it is an easy question--except for those who get their information from The End is Near Digest.


    I would love to hear Bill (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    answer that question.....I would even pay to hear him answer it....

    And that fine publication... (none / 0) (#120)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    Yes, we all know talk radio hosts (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:37:15 AM EST
    are unbiased.

    Knowledgable? (none / 0) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:26:24 PM EST
    So is Rove. So is Limbaugh. So is Olberman.

    etc., etc., etc.


    She is biased (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:09:58 PM EST
    I will give you that..

    BTW - Anchorage is a fair sized city. Living there doesn't make you an expert on bear hunting or Palin.


    Proof please (none / 0) (#96)
    by cawaltz on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:17:46 AM EST
    or are you just using your ESP?

    Bill Clinton used to publish (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:57:58 PM EST
    his summer reading list.  Obama has done so too, iirc.

    They asked in a VP debate years ago what their favorite book was--I remember this because I remember Lloyd Bentsen answered the Winds of War.... and how that told us to never be so unprepared for war as we were pre-WWII.

    And they asked all the Republican candidates in 2000 who their favorite philosopher was.  McCain said Teddy Roosevelt.  And, W?  He famously said Jesus.

    Asking a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate what they read is not unfair or unusual.


    Did anybody ask (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 09:16:22 PM EST
    Bill Clinton or even little Georgie what newspapers and magazines they read?

    Were those questions about favorite books and philosophers delivered with a curled lip and a sneer?


    As far as I recall (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 11:52:16 PM EST
    EVERY question ever asked of Bill Clinton was asked with a curled lip and a sneer.  And of course Mr. Clinton had already written a couple of books.

    Why would a question that illuminates a candidate's influences be considered a "gotcha?"  How stinking INNOCUOUS can a question get beyond asking what magazines someone reads?

    What would a TOUGH question look like?


    Bill was so far from the (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    nincompoop that Palin is....

    The media knew better than to ask Rhodes Scholar Bill about what he reads because he could go on and on....No news there....

    The media attacks weakness...and Palin's is clearly her right-wing and shallow views....

    Palin's recent Twitters reveal just how shallow she is....


    No blame here? (none / 0) (#15)
    by ricosuave on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:34:08 PM EST
    Surely Rove has found a way to blame this on Obama or Clinton.

    Well, maybe Clinton...... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    Ciuric knows how to interview? (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    Who knew?

    Geez (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    How many times did Palin have to tell Couric that being pro life meant she wanted more resources available to women rather than the idea of jailing women?

    I also like the part where she reminds Couric that the President doesn't legislate Congress does that.....geez you all are right She is a moron.....evidently she doesn't realize that she and McCain just could have executive ordered us to death(rolling my eyes and placing my tongue firmly in cheek).


    Oh, don't fall for that (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    No one wants to put women into jail....Pro-lifers figured out long ago that was a non-starter....Doctors, yep, put them in the slammaroo.   Make it impossible for the poor and middle class to get abortions, yep.

    She was being evasive, trying to hide the ramifications of her true pro-life position.


    Yeah she could have just (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    over ridden that pesky SC decision...

    Not at first (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:50:55 PM EST
    But over time, she could significantly hurt abortion rights.....She could pressure the FDA to not accept RU486; she could institute a gag rule for the military overseas; she could appoint pro-life judges....

    Everyone knows that--that is the whole idea, the entire point, behind being pro-life.  If you personally oppose abortion, but would let everyone make her own decision, then you are by definition pro-choice. The positions are so well known by now there should be no confusion.  The Right wingers love her because she is so pro-life....

    But some just want to see Palin as pro-choice.  Nonsense....


    You mean like (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:05:48 PM EST
    giving Interpol free rein?

    That kind of stuff??



    I don't think Interpol (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:19:59 PM EST
    will be outlawing abortion....

    But interesting tidbit from the outer reaches of conservativia.  

    Paranoia goes on....the black helicopters are going to getcha.  Obama will put people in FEMA concentration camps--just like Beck said.

    What are conservatives going to do when all the whacked-out stuff they fearmonger about doesn't happen?  I suppose it is like all those groups who gather toghether on the date they know the world will end only to see things go on normally....they will just melt away, back into the woodwork....


    Then why did he sign (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 07:32:34 PM EST
    the modification to the EO?

    That he did with no explanation is a fact.

    I mean it sure didn't help the folks in Amsterdam stop a terrorist, did it??


    I don't know why he did it (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    and neither do you....

    You're just scrummaging for fearmongers

    There are all kinds of daily actions that occur...and the whackos will take one and distort...

    Actually, I think Obama did it because he will make conservatives eat live kittens in a mass satanic ritual he learned as a youth in Kenya--where he was born....


    LOLOLOLOL (none / 0) (#95)
    by cawaltz on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:16:58 AM EST
    This is abso- freaking-lutely hysterical.

    Let's see the present occupant of the WH still hasn't rescinded the conscience clause, cut low cost birth control from the stimulus package and hasn't said a peep about either the Stupak OR Nelson amendment but I should worry because Sarah Palin might harm what's left of my reproductive rights(after the Democrats get through shredding them).

    OMG Thanks for the chuckle.


    Good grief (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:48:48 AM EST
    You think Palin would appoint a Sotomayor to the court?

    Palin is better on choice than Obama?  That is some gerrymandered reasoning....

    You must really like Palin....


    Yeah (none / 0) (#94)
    by cawaltz on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:12:59 AM EST
    she's so darn evasive and partisan on the issue that's why she wouldn't put a pro lifer on the bench and instead sent the nomination back.....oh wait.....she didn't do that. She has a better record on choice IMO then our "present(as in that's how I voted on choice in IL)" WH occupant.

    Furthermore, I didn't exactly hear her call the pill an abortifactant which is a step above the PRESENT WH occupants position on the subject(re: conscience clause)

    Heck, I wonder if she would have stripped low cost birth control out of the stimulus bill for poop and giggles(also like the current WH occupant)

    I also looooooove how the current occupant has spoken out against the Nelson amendment and the Stupak amendment......oh wait

    Let me know when the left side of the aisle walks the walk instead of just talking the talk and then and only then can they claim superiority on Palin on the issue of reproduction.


    Refusing to put a pro-lifer (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    on the Alaska Supreme Court....Progressive Palin apologists do tend to cling to this arcane bit of trivia....

    What remote chance does an Alaskan Supreme Justice have to implement a pro-life agenda?

    I frankly have no idea what the exigencies and circumstances were over the Alaska Supreme Court pick. But it doesn't matter because abortion policy is largely set at the national level--not state Supreme Courts....I am sure others have gone down that rabbit hole of desperate hope that Palin apologists have that she is really pro-choice, and have an answer for you.  But I don't need to go through all that rigaramole to know where she stands....She has been clear enough.

     I do know a winger when I see one.  Only the blind could fail to see it.


    Whatever your feelings about Palin (none / 0) (#122)
    by CST on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 01:34:37 PM EST
    we should all realize at this point that this is not true:

    "But it doesn't matter because abortion policy is largely set at the national level--not state Supreme Courts"

    The difference between states on abortion policy is enormous.  Especially when you consider simple things like access, which is often the determining factor in whether or not a woman can get an abortion.

    Not everyone has the means or ability to travel hundreds of miles to see a doctor.


    Abortion policy is hardly ever set (none / 0) (#123)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:14:24 PM EST
    by state supreme courts.....State legislatures can legislate within U.S. Supreme Court guidelines.  Judicial review of state laws remains within the Federal Courts--I can't think of any exceptions.

    The point was that the Alaska Supreme Court had little to do with setting abortion policy.


    Why do you think (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:55:25 AM EST
    the right wing pro-lifers are so in love with Palin?

    Do you think that they really just missed the boat and don't realize that Palin is secretly pro-choice?  Palin has just duped them all?

    Palin has sent so many clear messages and dog whistles to the wingers....she is the most right wing candidate for major office in a long time....



    Obviously some people (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    were sucked right into the unconscious-conflation-of -HRC-and-Palin that the thug strategists were counting on.

    What about her connections to that Stars 'n Bars wavin' Alaska separatist movement; that's just standard middle-of-the-road conservatism?


    She dosnt have to waterboard (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:56:40 PM EST
    to make an enemy of America babble like an imbecile, if that's what you mean.

    What? (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:23:05 PM EST
    No 5000 word quotes??

    Thank you (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 07:33:02 PM EST
    Who knew (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 02:44:32 PM EST
    that he had even been married?  How could she stand him?  (Well, I guess she doesn't have to stand him any more.)

    Can you imagine marrying him (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 09:28:30 PM EST
    and to top it off getting stuck with the name Darby Rove?  That girl deserves a jackpot day.

    "Behind every good man....." (none / 0) (#99)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:05:46 AM EST
    Why not the opposite? I know nothing about her, or who influenced his thoughts over the years. They really look a lot alike...did you see the photo?



    I read once that she's a liberal (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:34:28 AM EST
    It caused me to shudder thinking about being married to Karl Rove and being some shade of liberal.  It may have been a publicity stunt claim, they do almost look related.  Maybe she just needs a spa day :)

    Yes, most politicians make me shudder (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 09:52:15 AM EST
    at the thought of what it must be like to be married to them. Axelrod? Ewwwwwww.

    I think both of you (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 08:29:10 PM EST
    have defined yourselves quite well.