<p>
comes across as a real tear-jerker, even now–and Im not spinnin this one.</p>
<p>Clearly, Kluge, you’ve never lived with someone who is mentally unstable. I have, which is why I see the pattern as very credible. </p>
<p>I also find your “theory” about the support checks to be somewhere between “dead wrong” and funny. Simply put, I’ve been there and seen enough people who have been there. As a lawyer, you should know that child support is sent to the parent - and child support can include college. I know someone whose college account was raided by her stepfather, so her father paid twice (once into her trust and another time to the school). Parents are often unaware or incapable of finding out where their money goes. </p>
<p>As the child of divorced parents, I find it almost laughable that either parent would send the other money for personal use. The story does pass the sniff test; it’s just that it might kill people to actually acknowledge that Karl Rove grew up in an environment that made his current success very unlikely (instead of growing up in the seventh circle of Hell, under the personal tutialge of Satan).</p>
<p>The details of the drama do pass the sniff test. Yes, the stepdad could have sent checks to Karl, but guess what? Most parents don’t do that! As a logical matter, the possibility of an alternative does not mean that the other situation is not true. Otherwise, reality wouldn’t really exist, now would it? </p>
<p>Let’s analogize! You drove to work today via the highway. But why take the highway when it’s notoriously jammed? That doesn’t make any sense. Ergo, you must have taken back roads to work. So you took the back roads, but, as they are the less direct route, you really would have taken the highway to work. Ergo, you took the highway. In the alternative, you are not really at work but playing hooky because your claim of how you got to work doesn’t make sense. :)</p>
<p>Your argument, parsed:
- This COULD be false!<br>
- There COULD be an alternative way for Mr. Rove to support Karl, so his intention was to support his ex-wife.
- Living with someone who eventually commits suicide has no discernable influence on one’s upbringing.
- Well, even if it is true, who cares? Having a mom who commits suicide, a dad who abandons you, and finding out that your dad isn’t your father isn’t that bad, now really!</p>
<p>Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. I’m not sure how you fake dead bodies. It says more about you than it will ever say about the New Republic article or Karl Rove.</p>
<p>You know what’s really more amazing than how easy it is to predict that threads like this will go south?</p>
<p>The fact that you guys dance the same dance over and over, yet never get tired of it. Man, I really don’t get domestic politics and its…“allure.”</p>
<p>Ari,</p>
<p>Kluge made a point that he believes is important. I thought Ariesathena’s response was compelling and powerful. You may not be interested in the topic but please don’t belittle their discussion as a thread “go[ne] south” or a tiring dance.</p>
<p>It bears reminding that the OP was put out without comment other than that it was “interesting.” No attempt to garner sympathy for the Anti-Christ Rove[Edit: FS–can I use “Anti-Christ” in view of what’s going on over in the Pope thread?–will it be more offensive to atheists than to Christians?] No attempt to excuse Rove’s sins, whether real or imagined.</p>
<p>Aries’ point is very well taken. A marriage that dissolves as soon as a student leaves for college, leaving him on his own, ending with a parental suicide can’t have been any picnic for a young person even prior to the divorce.</p>
<p>Anyway, I didn’t start no dance.</p>
<p>I’m just so curious why the usual suspects have to go out on a limb, proverbial or otherwise, in their defense of Rove. I mean, it <em>is</em> predictable, yes, since said suspects would defend any member of this administration, regardless of the level of committed heinousness.</p>
<p>I don’t really have an opinion on the validity, or lack thereof, of Rove’s story. I am just more amused that the predictable sorts would so vociforously defend him, although I know that criticizing any member of this administration is tantamount to treason to my conservative CC pals.;)</p>
<p>"I don’t really have an opinion on the validity, or lack thereof, of Rove’s story. I am just more amused that the predictable sorts would so vociforously defend him, although "</p>
<p>I’m amused that the predictable sorts were so quick to personally attack because on a purely personal level, not that much is known about Rove. As evidenced by this thread.</p>
<p>AM:
Who are you calling “predictable,” kettle?
I really haven’t seen any defense of Rove in this thread, vociforous or otherwise–it wasn’t the point. I have seen a fair number of vociferous attacks, though. If you find those Rove defenses, why don’t you point them out, mmmmkay?</p>
<p>driver, certainly you must know by now that in the minds of the left, when you don’t attack someone from the administration, you are defending it. They have taken GWB’s words to heart when it comes to battling their “real” enemy - you are either with us (in Howard Dean’s battle of good versus evil) or you are against us.</p>
<p>LOL, Driver! </p>
<p>Predictable is as predictable does.</p>
<p>I’m just as curious as to why the usual suspects entirely miss the actual point of the Rove article (or else, refuse to see it), and instead, view it and all those who actually do “get it”, as “defending” the actions of Karl Rove. Edsall’s chief sin, I suppose, was neglecting to play the kool-aid drinker by failing to tap into the vitriolic hive-mind of the Rove-hating far left, and (once again ad-nauseum) accuse Karl Rove of being devil-spawn. shame on Edsall for demonstrating journalistic objectivity, for declining to use incediary rhetoric, for actually attempting to use a political opponent’s history to accertain what makes him tick! What in God’s name is journalism coming to?</p>
<p>Driver, post #44 had me laughing rather hard. Thanks ;)</p>
<p>I think he is recreating his dysfunctional family in the nation as a whole. ;)</p>
<p>Someone already asked “what about Clinton”, so I won’t.</p>
<p>The back and forth between liberal and conservative reminds me of this story I receieved in email today:</p>
<p>Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer & would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in winter. </p>
<p>The 2 most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into 2 distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives. </p>
<p>Once beer was discovered it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were inv ented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed. </p>
<p>Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as “the Conservative movement.” </p>
<p>Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q’s and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as ‘girliemen.’ </p>
<p>Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided. </p>
<p>Over the years conservatives came to be s y mbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass. </p>
<p>Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported! bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. </p>
<p>Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t “fair” to make the pitcher also bat. </p>
<p>Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, Marines, athletes and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living. </p>
<p>Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to “govern” the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believ e Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tame and created a business of trying to get MORE for nothing. </p>
<p>Here ends today’s lesson in world history: </p>
<p>It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to respond to the above before simply laughing and forwarding it. A Conservative will be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that i t will be forwarded immediately </p>
<p>Now you know.</p>
<p>Ooops, spelled both “incendiary”, and “ascertain” incorrectly. :o Sorry…</p>
<p>Some months ago I heard a statistic that indicated that most of today’s top 100 actors are the product of broken homes. The article suggested a link between dysfunctional families and the need for attention and limelight.</p>
<p>Rove isn’t my favorite character, but the article is interesting as a potential hint to Rove’s talent for ‘spin’. Presumably, with a mess like that at home, Rove earned his ability to ‘spin’ through hard practice. I think the back story goes a long way toward explaining his unwavering confidence in the validity of ‘spin’.</p>
<p>I suppose I should have guessed that commenting that having your parents divorce when you’re 19, and having your mother commit suicide a decade or so later after apparently not meeting your personal standards of maternal devotion didn’t seem to me to be all that much to “overcome”, and that having been “happily married for 20 years, father of son he did not abandon… Did not commit suicide” didn’t seem like such a stunning triumph over that adversity would be characterized as a “vociferous attack” on Karl Rove. Frankly, I’d have made the same comment if Driver had been fawning over anyone else with the same sob story. (And yes, that wasn’t the point of the story, just a side comment.)</p>
<p>Ariesathena - you’re dead wrong in your assumptions about what I understand from personal experience in this area. I still don’t consider being happily married for 25 years, raising three terrific kids, and not having committed suicide to be evidence of heroic triumph over adversity. As to your theory about support - that would make sense if Rove were a minor at the time of the divorce, but he was 19 when his parents separated, and his Mom moved to a different state. The “Mommy stole my support checks” story still doesn’t pass the sniff test - and yes, I have personal experience in this area - from that era - as well.</p>
<p>Kluge, I couldn’t sit down and invent you, if I tried. I’m very thankful that you’re back, in full form. Wouldn’t you agree that not getting vociferously frog-marched is a pretty serious accomplishment for someone coming from such a difficult background? Have you no empathy?</p>
<p>“mess like that at home” what mess? what mess that hundreds of thousands of kids haven’t dealt with in some shape or form</p>
<p>dad waited to leave when son was older, mom, well, he was 29 when she died, not a little boy</p>
<p>while its good Rove didn’t collapse or rob banks, his anger, his hatred, his machevilian ways don’t show me a nice guy</p>
<p>he provides a service, and people pay him for it…</p>
<p>empathy is for those that deserve it and have shown compassion for others, Rove, I don’t see either…</p>
<p>I guess if Rove had robbed banks, some would say well, it was his “rough” childhood and we should emphathize</p>
<p>let me see, he went to college, had a roof, wasn’t beaten, had food, but mom and dad didn’t get along so well…</p>
<p>Sorry, but no matter what age, divorce, the disbursement of family, the revelation of unknown parentage and the suicide of a parent is traumatic. It sounds like it might have a touch of spin to it and it may not be as traumatic as what happend to kluge but why get into a wee wee match about whose sob story is bigger? </p>
<p>Compared to my idyllic life (upper middle class, parents married 50 years, no lineage surprises, no suicides, basically functional family), it is a sob story. And nevermind the marriage and the three kids, Rove has made himself a pivotal figure in the government of the world’s superpower. Even if you hate the guy’s tactics, you have to admit he’s a technical ‘success’.</p>
<p>Finally, there is a potential connection to his concentration of spin. In my experience, 19 year olds often ‘spin’ their back story if it’s too chaotic or unpresentable. Heck, my in-laws spun their sad back story for years. I only found out after I was married for four years.</p>
<p>“his anger, his hatred, his machevilian ways don’t show me a nice guy”</p>
<p>Can you provide evidence of the emotions you’re attributing to Mr. Rove? I’ve never heard any such thing, and I’ve never heard “hate” and “anger” considered to be his political motives. I actually asked someone in my company this morning who knows Mr. Rove extremely well if this is an apt description and was told the he is the least angry guy in the world and whatever one thinks of his politics and methods, hate and anger aren’t his motivating forces. I did not, however, ask any personal questions or details because the person I asked is quite well-known and that would be intrustive, but I was curious about this.</p>