www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Rove had Sen. Hilary Clinton's office exorcised?

Brian,

Senator Clinton sat next to husband Bill on national TV and helped defuse the Gennifer Flowers issue, thus assuring his election. Then she held her tongue for the 8 years of his White House extra curricular activities. She has been given her reward.

Upstate New York has a large Republican base, but of course New York City is largely Democratic and so goes the vote. They apparently like her, but for the life of me I can see nothing to like in someone who will allow themselves to be publicly humiliated for nine years simply to achieve public office.

That being said, you are quite correct, that seat is likely hers as long as she wants it. Witness Javits, Moynihan, D'Amato, etc. New York Senate seats once they change hands tend to stay with the incumbent. I should also point out in all fairness that she is not the first to carpet bag in New York, I think RFK did the same.

Regardless, Senator Clinton's positions are not exactly Catholic.

Oh really? You discern moral equivalence here?

Gordo, who is snickering at his memories of the 90's... :p

Perhaps he should just relax and have a cigar, and it will all come back to him....

Ah, the double-posting demons are attacking again.

Gordo:
In my opinion, President Bush is more immoral than President Clinton, although I am certainly able to recognize that President Clinton is a man of serious moral flaws. I just can't understand why the other side has blinded themselves to the moral flaws of President Bush.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Padraig, unless you are in Senator Clinton's confidence or can see into her soul, I don't see how you can judge motivations or guilt here. I really can't! I am not a big supporter of her as a Democrat but one can't see and hear the right wing shock jocks on radio and Tv without feeling that they have a very weird obsession with her.

Y'all, I just thought it was interesting - whether it happened or didn't happen - that they recognize the need for freeing something from the darkness of the world.

It turns out to be a contradiction in a way. If it was done, and there was nothing there to fill the space - Scriptures says if the house is swept clean - the spirits are rebuked - they come back and find it empty - they go out and find even more and bring them back. So if it did occur and the person in the place was not filled with the Lord...see what I mean.

It just made me wonder. Yet, again, in some odd way the person that wrote this says I believe in good and evil and the necessity to fight it.
To me it was not about Sen. Clinton or Karl Rove, it was about recognizing the need of God.

Pani Rose

Dear Ryan you said:

I say:

Never label someone, but rather state instead the action that Pres. Bush committed. To label someone and state that they are immoral, is merely propaganda with the intent to denigrate. If though you state exactly what and when something was said or done that was morally wrong, rather than labelling them in order to denigrate, then it would carry weight...that is if it's true.

As for Karl Rowe, if he did exorcize the office, then good for him. It is his right, regardless of whether it would have been a slight on Senator Clinton.
Then again her position on abortions is not too kosher. Maybe he felt that since her positions were not within the 'Church', that she was led by evil. Of course maybe he knew the priest, and the priest himself told him to do it.

Although I do not agree with any of Senator Clinton's stances, I believe that at least her stances were sincere...at least at one time. Now that she's moving more to the center, I'm not too sure. As for Pres. Clinton...hmmm! I don't think so. But then again, he was likable. Real politician! :rolleyes:
------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Brian,

You said that Karl Rowe was an agnostic. I really wish you would state exactly what was said to make you think so, rather than just labelling someone. :rolleyes:

As for Senator Clinton, it doesn't matter whether she is liked or not. Since she's a lawyer, she will have the lawyers votes. She will have the teacher's votes. She will have George Soros' money and his hundred plus organizations with her. And I could go on and on.

Zenovia

Dear Brian

As for Karl Rove, I read the beginning of the article and it seems that he is brilliant and doing his job quite well. As for him 'diliberately' leaking this and that, it is purely the authors opinion, probably based on what he and those around him would do if they were in his position. It merely reflects the character of the author, not Karl Rove.

If Karl Rove went against gay marriage, his stance was the same as the stances taken by most Americans. He did not 'deliberately' pretend to hold them. If that's the case then one could just as well say that most Americans pretend to hold those opinions. Yet as was shown by the polls, they do not. :rolleyes:

The hatred towards Karl Rove by the Democrats is because they were not able to conceal from the American public the issues. He managed to bring them to the American public.

As an example of what has been going on, I recall that the Christian Coalition was being harrassed by the IRS. The IRS tried to prevent them from having tax free status, simply because they were distributing pamphlets enlightening people as to how each Senator and Republican was voting. Yet at the same time, Unions could do what ever they wanted. It seems that there are those that want to deliberately keep people in the dark in order to satisfy their own agenda.

So shame on them! :p

Zenovia

Zenovia:

I would be careful about casting darts at liberals for deliberately seeking to keep people in the dark. The administration of President Bush is probably among the most secretive in the history of the country-if not the most secretive. There are plenty who are guilty of deliberately keeping the public in the dark for the sake of their own agenda-Republicans and Democrats alike. I've said this before, and I feel the need to repeat it. I can understand why so many conservatives have criticized liberal politicians for their moral failings. I voted for President Clinton twice and given the same choices that existed in 1992 and 1996, I would vote for him again. However, I freely admit that he is a man who has committed serious sins for which he needs to repent. I simply don't understand why it is that while the conservatives are so busy casting stones at people like President Clinton, Vice-President Gore, and Senators Clinton and Kerry, they blind themselves to the very serious flaws of political leaders on the right. It really gets to be quite tiresome.

Sanctas Simplicitas! :rolleyes:

Brian,

Not being interested in chasing down this most recent rabbit hole...do you have some evidence that Mr. Rove is an agnostic? Most people are to one degree or another, I suppose, but why do you label him as a cynical hypocrite and an agnostic. I barely know the man. Are you on friendly speaking terms with him?

CDL

Dearest Pani Rose,

I knew that your intent was not to stir up controversy, however, some of our posters here LOVE to discuss and debate politics. That is fine, however, I will remind them that it needs to be within the limits of charity.

I was thinking, especially the other day after 9/11, and all the controversy, yet again, on who was to blame, the President's talk to the nation, etc....I am getting *disgusted* by the partisan hatred in this country lately. In my thirty years of voting, some for democrats, some for republicans, I NEVER remember this country being so polarized, divided, and hateful. I NEVER remember this country going after their leaders in the way young people and others, as well as politicians do today. It is disgraceful and ugly, and it quite literally makes me ashamed. What made this country great is that it always stood behind its leaders, especially in times of crisis.

Whether or not one voted for President Bush or not, and whether or not, in retrospect we should have gone into Iraq (and I remind everyone that they can get tapes of Larry King Live to hear the full, unconditional, support of former President Clinton and Senator Hillary Clinton for the war into Iraq), he is a good man and a devoted Christian and he is doing his best to keep us safe. Any man who is foolish enough these days to go into the public service of politics has the good of the country as his first and foremost priority, and that stands for whomever is President, whether his last name is Clinton or Bush! Every President has to make tough decisions and calls, and they do the best they can.

Do I blame President Clinton for not going after Bin Laden more agressively? Absolutely not! If the movie showed anything the other night, atleast in how I saw it, it was that bureaucracy was to blame more in allowing him to slip by--*not* President Clinton.

I would also like to comment on something that few people realize: President Bush has a lovely, good and kind wife and as many of us who are married know, that says alot for a man, because husband and wife are as one in many ways.

I am sick of the disrespect and 'blame' for everything in the world on him. I would say the same for our next or our former President, if he were to be blamed as much as this President. The 'blame game' is part of the moral and spiritual crisis of this country. Young people 'blame' their parents for any thing that does not go right in their lives, criminals 'blame' their childhoods, etc, etc. etc...

Anyway, I just needed to vent. Hatred is an ugly thing and a passion that brings the soul to destruction. There is much hatred and venom in our society today when it comes to politics...and that truly saddens me alot. May our Lord forgive us all!

In Christ,
Alice