Yes. i watched it, and i noticed that it was a chop of a longer interview with Rove. AND AND, I remember watching Rove several times on different talking head shows making essentially that same point. Only in those occasions, the fact that Obama was inexperienced was also part of Roves comments and thus part of the reasoning.
given what I know about what Rove said in other interviews, it seems to me that the clip you are leaning on lacks full context (on purpose).
Clearly Kane and Palin represent very similar situations... or as you point out dissimilar in that Kane has more experience as both Mayor of a biger city and Gov. for a longer period.
But the context is the experience of the PRESIDENTIAL candidate! George W. Bush could not have gotten away with picking a novice. Nor could Obama and neither did. But suggesting that McCain did something unheard of in picking Palin as the second on his ticket, or that Palin for McCain is the same as Kane for Obama isnt putting those actions in context.
Ferd, here is the entire segment of that interview that had to do with Kaine. I do tend to post shorter vids because personally I think more people will watch the shorter the vids are. I did not edit anything or post a vid that left out any pertinent information. If you do have a vid or interview to post I would certainly be interested in watching it. However, I think that the full context of what Rove is saying is abundantly clear and that partisanship basically forced him to completely go the opposite direction. The root issue is clearly that Rove did not feel like Kaine was ready to be President and therefore was a political pick for Vice President and not one that reflected the best interest of the country. I don't see how it can be spin any other way.
Either way, I'm sure this is a dead horse by now. I would still be interested in other interviews that said differently though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xs4WPWWwDc
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Ferd, here is the entire segment of that interview that had to do with Kaine. I do tend to post shorter vids because personally I think more people will watch the shorter the vids are. I did not edit anything or post a vid that left out any pertinent information. If you do have a vid or interview to post I would certainly be interested in watching it. However, I think that the full context of what Rove is saying is abundantly clear and that partisanship basically forced him to completely go the opposite direction. The root issue is clearly that Rove did not feel like Kaine was ready to be President and therefore was a political pick for Vice President and not one that reflected the best interest of the country. I don't see how it can be spin any other way.
Either way, I'm sure this is a dead horse by now. I would still be interested in other interviews that said differently though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xs4WPWWwDc
Stew,
When you go to On The Issues, Kaine doesn't have any "big important things he has done" as Rove has said. Sarah Palin does. That is Rove's point on Kaine and not so much that he comes from a small place of governance.
Stew,
When you go to On The Issues, Kaine doesn't have any "big important things he has done" as Rove has said. Sarah Palin does. That is Rove's point on Kaine and not so much that he comes from a small place of governance.
PO, I know that everyone has to try to find a way to support or validate what "their person" says. I get it. I know that Rove feels obligated to criticize whatever the Democrats do while embracing what the Republicans do...even if they are one and the same. I understand too that the constituents of the respective parties then feel obligated to validate the statements or stances. However, Rove is a communicator and what he said here is very clear. I am not trying to make a greater statement about Obama's qualifications or anything like that. I am simply pointing out the nature of partisanship.
Rove was very clear in what he said. He qualified his statements about Kaine and gave very specific measuring sticks. He specifically mentioned the amount of time that Kaine had been a governor as a significant factor. He specifically mentioned the size of the city that Kaine was the mayor of as a significant factor and apparently had done enough research on it to put it in perspective. I get that now people have to find a way to justify or rectify the statements, but I believe that Rove was very clear and specific. I also believe that if Palin had not been selected, noone would be trying to change the context or the content of his original statement.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
PO, I know that everyone has to try to find a way to support or validate what "their person" says. I get it. I know that Rove feels obligated to criticize whatever the Democrats do while embracing what the Republicans do...even if they are one and the same. I understand too that the constituents of the respective parties then feel obligated to validate the statements or stances. However, Rove is a communicator and what he said here is very clear. I am not trying to make a greater statement about Obama's qualifications or anything like that. I am simply pointing out the nature of partisanship.
Rove was very clear in what he said. He qualified his statements about Kaine and gave very specific measuring sticks. He specifically mentioned the amount of time that Kaine had been a governor as a significant factor. He specifically mentioned the size of the city that Kaine was the mayor of as a significant factor and apparently had done enough research on it to put it in perspective. I get that now people have to find a way to justify or rectify the statements, but I believe that Rove was very clear and specific. I also believe that if Palin had not been selected, noone would be trying to change the context or the content of his original statement.
Stew,
I understand what you are saying and I can agree to a point. But, IF Rove had not included this wording, "He has been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could name a big important thing that he has done", then I would totally dismiss that as a partisan remark.
You are focusing on Rove specifically mentioning Kaine's term run and size of his city. I'm looking at Rove as qualifying those two with saying he has not had any sizeable legislation to his name.
When you compare both Kaine and Palin, she has a longer record of reform. She has been involved in some very important legislative issues.
Stew,
I understand what you are saying and I can agree to a point. But, IF Rove had not included this wording, "He has been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could name a big important thing that he has done", then I would totally dismiss that as a partisan remark.
You are focusing on Rove specifically mentioning Kaine's term run and size of his city. I'm looking at Rove as qualifying those two with saying he has not had any sizeable legislation to his name.
When you compare both Kaine and Palin, she has a longer record of reform. She has been involved in some very important legislative issues.
I'll let Governor Kaine himself defend his record as governor for the last three years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIOJK4AEjNs
As far as Rove's comment that "He has been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could name a big important thing that he has done"...I wonder if he could have named anything important that Governor Palin had done if they had asked him that. I just don't see how anybody could not see this as partisan foolishness, particularly when you see Rove's reaction to the naming of Palin. Suddenly he was praising the virtues of a small town mayor.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
I'll let Governor Kaine himself defend his record as governor for the last three years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIOJK4AEjNs
As far as Rove's comment that "He has been able but undistinguished. I don't think people could name a big important thing that he has done"...I wonder if he could have named anything important that Governor Palin had done if they had asked him that. I just don't see how anybody could not see this as partisan foolishness, particularly when you see Rove's reaction to the naming of Palin. Suddenly he was praising the virtues of a small town mayor.
But, Kaine is recorded as having NO ISSUE STANCE with On The Issues for:
Civil Rights
Corporations
Environment
Families and Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Government Reform
Immigration
Jobs
Social Security
Technology
On the issues he does have a stance, it does look like, honestly, a good record.
Abortion - Faith based abstinence
Budget and Economy
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy and Oil
Homeland Security
He must be too conservative for Obama. He looks like a good person, on the surface, for what I looked at.
But, Kaine is recorded as having NO ISSUE STANCE with On The Issues for:
Civil Rights
Corporations
Environment
Families and Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Government Reform
Immigration
Jobs
Social Security
Technology
On the issues he does have a stance, it does look like, honestly, a good record.
Abortion - Faith based abstinence
Budget and Economy
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy and Oil
Homeland Security
He must be too conservative for Obama. He looks like a good person, on the surface, for what I looked at.
PO, I'm not trying to make an argument for Kaine as VP. That was not my point. My point was the nature of partisanship as evidenced by this clip. It is silly and counter-productive in my opinion. I'm sure that Kaine does have an opinion and stance on all those issues above and has had to deal with them in his career, but that's another conversation.
I've got to run in a few minutes, so I'll talk to you later. I would have hoped that what I was trying to say was a little clearer, but I guess it is all relative.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Stew, I saw several Rove interviews where he made those comments about Kane. in all instances the fact that Obama has very little experience was part of the reason why Kane would be such a political pick.
McCain doesnt have that problem. Was Palin a political pick? sure. but McCain having vastly more experience can do that without it jepordizing the nation. Obama did not have that wiggle room.
and NO that isnt spin. that is fact.
If something happens to McCain, his choosing Palin does jeopardize the nation because she's not ready bro. No Presidential candidate has "wiggle room" to put the nation in danger. That's why I see McCain as unwise and unfit to lead. Obama's pick, even if he didn't have the "wiggle room" is far better for America should something happen to the chief executive.
He looks like a good person, on the surface, for what I looked at.
Linear Mode
