From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Karl Rove responds to Bush's Brain

August 26, 2004 3:55 PM

On Brit Hume's show a few minutes ago, Karl Rove responded in a surprisingly inarticulate way to the charges leveled in Bush's Brain. Now we know why this guy needs GWB as a frontman and virtually never gives interviews. And props to Brit Hume for not being a total kiss ass.

Availabe in Quicktime (56k, 200k). 2 minutes

More from the archive in Movies, Politics.

Karl Rove responds to Bush's Brain (08.26.2004)

Next Entry: Schwarzenegger's garage sale (08.26.2004)
Previous Entry: Playing by the rules (08.26.2004)

Read the 12 comments.


Actually, Hume didn't ask him to ..."respond[] to the charges leveled in Bush's Brain"; he asked him to respond to the clip he played...the one that consists of this one fellow's assertion that the "politics, policies, and power" of Rove pose a threat to our Republic.
Seems to me that wondering what fevered swamp the fellow in the clip had ben drinking from was a reasonable response.
You see, Rove is a grown-up...the notion that he -one man - could pose a "threat" to the republic that has withstood two centuries of war and tumult and change...well, I can see how a non-hysterical person would believe that such a belief is preposterous and unworthy of serious comment.

Fri Aug 27 2004 8:42 AM


Hitler was one man.

Look at the policy changes which have occurred during the Bush administration. Rove's view of the American presidency is more closely aligned to that of Russian President Putin than that of Madison or Jefferson.

Fri Aug 27 2004 12:10 PM


"Hilter was on man"

But the SS was made of thousands, without which Hitler's ability to hold onto power would have been severly limited. Also goes to show how a minority party can can through fear and intimidation of its rivals can squash all opposing ideas.

Fri Aug 27 2004 1:19 PM


you know Lenny Bruce "how hitler got started" ?
USA is not post war Germany. a little politchondria, there's really a basic difference
in the kinds of leaders that americans want and the sorts that some other countries crave.

Sat Aug 28 2004 7:49 AM


Of course Rove poses a threat to the Republic - along with the rest of the neo-con gang. These people have lost sight of the values of the founding fathers completely. For them, it's all about winning - at any cost - and with any alliance. Their cynical and desparate marriage to the reactionary "christian" right proves the point. Rove and his buddies are the biggest threat to this republic since the McCarthyism of the early fifties.

Mon Aug 30 2004 8:01 AM


Rock on. This crew will do ANYTHING to get re-elected and push their christian, neocon agenda on the rest of us.

I want to see Rove's phone doubt he was in touch with those Swift boat clowns.

Tue Aug 31 2004 12:35 PM


Hitler held onto power with his propaganda machine

Sat Sep 4 2004 3:00 PM


"Hitler held onto power with his propoganda machine" Dusty

Oh really? And what, exactly, is a 'propaganda machine'?

Let's ask one of the leaders of that 'machine':

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

So ask yourself:

Has anyone in the US been denounced for being anti-patriotic for opposing the war?
(Umm, well, that's a no-brainer...)

Has anyone speaking against the war been told they were placing the country in greater danger?
(Like Cheney claiming that if you vote Kerry there'll be another attack, maybe?

Don't be blinded by your own idea of what you think the USA is, or stands for.

Look at what it is becoming.

Thu Sep 9 2004 12:18 AM


Actually Hilter squashed any protests against him or his military ventures through fear, imprisonment and death. Popular support wasn't a concern after 1938, so he did more then "denounce" the pacifist he took great measures to SILENCE them. Not exactly comparible to United States of 2004 where thousands can and do march in the streets and vote.

What is ironic is your claim that the protestors are being called "anti-patriotic" for their position, while in the next line you accuse the current administration as being anti-patriotic (and even comparible to the Nazi's) for doing what they beleive is "best" (equally questionable) to defend the country. Pot calling the kettle black? Both positions can be right, both can be wrong, and both will cost lives right or wrong.

One might draw a comparison between your method and the methods used by the Vichy French during WW2. But both that comparison and yours are reaching beyond the grasp of reality.

Thu Sep 9 2004 7:15 AM



While it does seem ironic that many protesters are being labeled "anti-patriotic", these are the sad circumstances that many outspoken Americans face today. Fear, combined with a masterfully-honed media, can bring out the worst in people and has spawned countless enemies of the democratic voice...

The 2004 America you speak of where people can:

"march"...while this is true, it is (like most of Bush-rhetoric) a half-truth. Read up on what happened to most of the people who peacefully marched (and even those who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time). Most were made to promise to the court that they would never again partake in such civil disobedience to avoid trumped up this what constitutes a right in America?

"vote"....again, one of those. Well, if Bush does get his 4 more years with the elections being (hopefully) more closely scrutinized this time around, I'll at least be able to sleep knowing he was elected once.

- "the current administration...unpatriotic...for doing what they believe is 'best'"...

Hitler strongly believed that his mission was best, so did Julius Caesar and Pol Pot...the question to be asked is...FOR WHOM???

Thu Sep 9 2004 10:40 PM


I found this. Who does it describe?
...[the] personality is inflated, full of self-importance, always ready to demonstrate his superior knowledge and mastery, and his control over a situation. This is accompanied by a contempt for others, especially for those who really make an effort to work hard and to produce a well-finished job."
From Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind.

Fri Sep 17 2004 5:50 PM

Mike Dulong:

A non hysterical person would also sit calmly while the election is stolen by an out of control president.

According to MIT and Cal State studies, the
"most accurate method of vote tallying remains to be hand counting paper ballots."

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything."
- Joseph Stalin

Wed Nov 3 2004 8:10 PM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart