The biggest difference between Emanuel and Rove is the way the media treated them (note the use of the first name for Emanuel, last name for Rove in the headline). Generally, the media articles and features about Emanuel are favorable, almost to fawning, as in the extensive feature article on Emanuel's successes. Almost like the old western movies, portray the villain in the black hat, the hero in the white hat. Make sure the public knows which is which.

Well no matter whatever happens, Democrats are perpetual losers. When you put politics, party and any other element ahead of your country, which the Democrats do year after year after year, that automatically makes you a perpetual loser.

And the Little Ballet Dancer Wannabe is about as dirty and nasty as they come.

How can you compare the two? Rahm was elected by the people in his district to do what he does. Rove on the other hand was not elected to anything, not even dog catcher, and will in all likelihood have a monument built in his honor in Texas, to the envy of Emanuel.

Karl Rove is widely regarded as the person who began the whisper smear campaign against John McCain in South Carolina claiming McCain fathered an illigetimate black baby. Rove learned that trick from the late Lee Atwater and the Willie Horton ad used against Dukakis.

Karl Rove is also the person given the dubious credit of getting Dubya to give his blessing on making the very private matter of Teri Schiavo end of life quest into a public fiasco.

This is just the tip of the iceberg that sunk Bush's poll #s and the Republican Party's '06 defeat.

The differences between Rove and Rahm are a lot deeper than last and 1st name usage.

John D.,

You truly are Republican! What you describe fits the Republicans to a tee as much as it does the Democrats. You, and all those like you, are the cause of this country's demise and failure!

Rove, Emanuel, Carville, Atwater and so on... all cut from the same cloth.

Hmm I wonder why Rahm Emanuel would be given more favorable press than Karl Rove after the 2006 elections? Maybe it's because Rove's team LOST and you are only as good as your last performance.

PS Did I spell everything correctly Bruce?

John D. forgot his meds again this morning! John, do you HONESTLY think the cheneybush rigime has put country first? Do you HONESTLY think they've put country ahead of Republican politics? Honestly?

The main difference is that Rove is a filthy, slime ball who feasts from other peoples' problems. Emanuel is a quasi-slimey political operative who's just beginning to learn how to run dirty tricks. He's learning fast - look at the 2006 election results! (BTW: John, you did notice how the Republicans were LOSERS last fall, didn't you? Next election will make them perpetual losers.)

Emanuel hardly counts as an intern against the filty, slandering, hate-mongering, piece of (explitive deleted) beast Rove.

John D, what is with all the hate? Esmasculating Rahm Emanuel? After reading all of your mindless banter on how the left is full of hate mongerers, I am so surprised to hear this. Wait, no I am not. It is typical right wing tactics...you know, feeding misinformation. Have a nice time being angry for the rest of your sad life.

Nice try JohnnyDingbat. It's clearly the Republipukes that place party above country. Exactly what reality do you live in? Politicizing DOJ, NASA, FDA, FEMA, Iraq Reconstruction, etc. How many reports have we seen where pure science was replaced by Party/Bush talking points! Stop sniffing the ink from your two-bit loser trade publication!

I watched Rahm and his team completely blow off Dan Seals campaign despite as strong an effort as anyone was running. Only at the end did they offer some moral support and some staffers, but very little money.

At the end of the day, Seals lost by 7,500 votes to Mark Kirk, whereas Tammy Duckworth, whose campaign they poured money into (and whom I supported) lost by 3,500 votes. So I'm not terribly thrilled with Rahm's track record in picking winners and losers.

excuse me,

Keep your eyes on the prize. We've got a Democratic House and Senate.

Snalg, I need no meds, just common sense. Common sense tells me that Bush and Cheney have put this country first. They have been working to keep us and to improve not just the U.S., but the world.
Examples: Even according to U2's Bono, no other U.S. president or world leader has done as much for Africa as Bush.
Example: Under Bush the U.S. did more to help the tsunami victims. The government and people of this country gave billions and the U.S. military also was there for months helping to find bodies, remove debris and rebuild. The cost to our military to do this was in addition to the hundreds of millions given by the government.
Example: Bush and Blair have lead in the war in terror, which is about killing innocents time and time again.
Example: Bush pushed through tax cuts for ALL AMERICANS.
Outside of the tsunami victims, the Democrats have been fighting Bush every step of the way.

Oh and Rahm won an easily Democratic district in 2002. Prior to that? He was nothing but a political henchman for Clinton.

John D has not gotten over his being challenged on his allegation that John Edwards pays as much for his suits as Bush does - a claim that he HAS YET TO PROVE. If John D is the "journalist" that he claims to be, then he'd know about something called the "Internet", about how it has things called "search engines" with names like "Google" and Yahoo", and how anybody can use them to find articles of interest - articles that would provide FACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up one's allegations.

However, to date, John D has been UNABLE TO PROVIDE SUCH EVIDENCE!

I wonder why...?

From another blogger:

"Keep your eyes on the prize. We've got a Democratic House and Senate."

And a REPUBLICAN president for the past seven years, thanks in large measure to Karl Rove. Clue: a national election is different from statewide and Congressional district elections. Don't start measuring the drapes yet.

BC, you really and I do mean really need to get a life! I am not going to continue wasting my time on someone who is as clueless and demented as you. Like I've said, if you think that a man whose net worth is $60 million, who's a high-priced lawyer, owns an $8 million home that is nearly 30,000 square feet in size on a 102-acre lot, and who buys only imported suits (according to Men's Vogue)and drinks white wine while watching NCAA basketball games, a man who doesn't think twice about flying his hair stylist from California anywhere in the U.S. to the tune of $1,200 or $400 for a haircut that this man buys cheap suits then go ahead and think that. I and just about everyone else here is bored with your infatuation of the price of John Edwards' suits. Give it a rest.
Also, BC, I have supplied links upon links upon links to back up my stuff, yet I don't believe you have ever provided one to support your mentally-impaired thoughts and beliefs.
But, dude, seriously, GET A LIFE!!!!

"Example: Bush and Blair have lead in the war in terror, which is about killing innocents time and time again."

John D, That sounds just like something our president might say. Bush and Blair are responsible for the deaths of many innocent people in Iraq, but I never thought you would be the one pointing that out. Keep up the good work!

Reminds me of Dubya's famous quote: "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

Rodriguez,

I appreciate your admonition regarding the drapes. (It beats talking about how to spell Gonzo's last name.)

I trust you will keep in mind that Dubya's poll #s, low Republican presidential fundraising #s, are indicative of a trend that doesn't favor Republican candidates.

"..who helped the Democrats retake the House last November."

This isn't even close to being true. Democrats won in spite of Rahm, not because of him. The vast majority of his hand picked candidates lost while grassroots and netroots candidates that he opposed won.

Take Tammy Duckworth, his chosen candidate to Ill 6th. He forced a divisive challenge to grass roots supported Christine Cegelis. The results were a Republican win.

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/garbage_man

...the direct link between Watergate and W. There's really no two ways around it.

Let's review. Rove got his start in national politics when, as a hotshot College Republican, he went to work defeating the Democratic candidate for state treasurer in Illinois, Al Dixon. He posed as a Dixon volunteer under a false name. Stole the campaign stationary. Ginned up 1,000 invitations to the opening reception for Dixon headquarters promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing" and distributed them where Chicago's hippies and drunken hobos congregated.

This is what it took—what a party!—to get him noticed by the Republicans in Washington.

In 1972 he got a job working for the Committee to Re-Elect the President's Youth Division. Which sounds pretty innocent. But the youth division, run by a guy named Ken Rietz, was actually the wheelhouse for infiltrating the Edmund Muskie campaign. (An aside: Rietz is a top advisor to Fred Thompson's imminent presidential campaign. There are whispers that Thompson might become Karl Rove's next candidate. And as we know now, Fred Thompson served as the Nixon White House's spy with the Watergate prosecution.)

In 1973 the Republican National Committee hired the Young Master at $9,200 per year ($43,000 in today's money) to give seminars that included lessons in political dirty tricks. At one, he was recorded giving lessons on how to root through an opponent's garbage. (When I went on with conservative talk show host Lars Larson tonight, his response was, "What's wrong with that?" What a party.)

The RNC head who hired him was George H.W. Bush. Fast friends he became with the Bush family, especially their fake-cowboy son George Jr. Onwards and upwards with the Bush family and the Republican Party. Which has since made rooting around in the nation's garbage our national policy.

Tom O, thank you for pointing out the fact I left a word or two out. But an even bigger thank you for admitting you favor the terrorists who actually do kill innocents (such as those in Iraq today and yesterday) but in reality weirdos such as yourself think it's Bush and Blair who kill innocents.

Bhy the way, Tom O, were you barking when Clinton was killing thousands of Iraqi innocents with repeated bombings and innocents in Kosovo and Bosnia with his 46 straight days of bombing there?

Mr. Zook. The name is RodriQuez, not RodriGuez. Kind of proves the point about liberals' problems with Hispanic names, doesn't it?

Mr. RodriQuez,

My wife of 15 years is Guatemalen as is my step-son.

Get a grip, and after that, take your holier than thou spell police crap and go screw.

Such kind sentiments from Mr. Defeatocrat. I love it when a Loony Lefter has an anti-PC attack, especially when it's the Loony Lefters who advocate most of the PC nonsense, spelling or otherwise. Course, the LLers only hate PC when it's not in their interests.

Nice try John D, but as the old saying goes, "Close but no cigar".

Merely saying that John Edwards is rich - which nobody disputes - and linking to a Men's Vogue magazine article confirming that he's rich DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SUPPORT to YOUR ALLEGATION that he spends just as much on his custom-made suits as Bush does. You made the claim, and it's a simple "Yes" or "No" solution: either you have PROOF that confirms your claim, or you don't. To date, you have not provided any proof. Thus, it's safe to assume that you MADE THAT "FACT" UP and cannot PROVE IT.

Whine all you want (and you do excessively), but you made the allegation, have been challenged to prove it, and you haven't.

And saying that I have not provided links to anything that I've posted is such a BLATANT LIE that I laugh at your stupidity and arrogance. Here, let me post AGAIN the link that tells how much Bush spends on his suits - and it is provided by the SUIT MANUFACTURER:

http://www.oxxfordclothes.com/suntimes.asp