Blogcritics: Comments on Karl Rove: Ruler of The Woooorrrrrld!!

Comment by seamus

Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:20:18 EST

It looks like neither Taranto nor you read the passage from the Seattle PI before making fun of it. It didn't say that Rove was involved; it said that the Aussie party used a Rove-like outreach strategy. I may tell people that my readings of Sun Tzu impact my business decisions, but I'm not saying that ancient Chinese generals are communicating to me from the World of the Dead.

Comment by RJ

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:34:06 EST

The Senate elections in 2006 will be very interesting. On the one hand, the Dems are defending more seats than the GOP, so it looks good, at first glance, for the Republicans. OTOH, it is rare that an incumbent President GAINS seats in an off-year election. (Of course, Bush did that very thing in 2002, and Clinton did as well in 1998.) So, how the elections in 2006 go, so goes the nation. Place your bets now.

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 11:57:43 EST

I think the outcome of the 2000 election caused the bitterness. The diehards who remained convined that Gore actually won despite the recounts that showed otherwise eventually infected the whole party. I also think that MoveOn.org did a damned fine job of anti-Bush propagandizing. This whole 'Bush is stupid', 'Bush is a chimp', 'Bush is a fascist' can be traced back to them and their surrogates. Any sensible person knows Bush isn't stupid, but their character assassination tactics were very effective. All of this also really picked up after 9/11. For some reason once Bush started to look really good in the aftermath of the attack the extremists got particularly virulent in their attacks, and that influenced others on the left who were given to emotional irrationality and they even dragged the moderates along with them to some degree. It might all come down to fear of being powerless and becoming more and more entrenched to hold on to what power they have left to them. Unfortunately it is sort of a 'cut of your nose to spite your face' situation, because the harder they fight to hold on to power the more opportunities they lose to exercise at least limited power through compromise and cooperation. Dave

Comment by Silas Kain

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 10:04:21 EST

What do you think caused the bitterness, Dave? That being said, do you think there is a way to try and heal some of the divide?

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:36:01 EST

I think Bush found it very difficult once he got into office to find the common ground with Liberals which he had thought he'd be able to get together on. They'd become too bitter and too defensive to work with effectively. I think that's why he had to rely even more on the extreme right than he did in the first election, because the liberal crossover votes he had - not unreasonably - expected to be there had just disappeared. Dave

Comment by Silas Kain

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 03:07:04 EST

David In the end, many on the left obsess over Rove because they hate the thought that President Bush could actually be the one who so badly cleaned their clock in 2002 and 2004. But remember this, the President took some risks that few Presidents in our history would have dared to take. Those risks are just now paying dividends and, what does the left do? Finger Rove as the "brilliant" one, of course. I can't dispute what you're saying about President Bush as far as taking risks go. I honestly hope that the risks he took will continue paying dividends. I'm still left with a feeling of dread about his Administration and it's not because of being on the left. Many of the President's positions work for me. His approach to stem cell research, for instance, made total sense to me. But it wasn't enough for many on either side. In the end I really wanted George W. Bush to be that "uniter" he claimed to be. It's not his fault that our country is so divided but if he is the leader so many believe him to be why hasn't he bridged the gap? As 'liberal' as I am, I honestly wish that President Bush could inspire the nation as President Reagan did. As Paula Cole sings, "Where have all the cowboys gone?"

Comment by David Flanagan

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:41:11 EST

Silas, Thanks for your comment. Yes, the kingmaker is very powerful, but remember, they are also CHOSEN. President Bush chose Karl Rove as his advisor, not the other way around. In the end, many on the left obsess over Rove because they hate the thought that President Bush could actually be the one who so badly cleaned their clock in 2002 and 2004. But remember this, the President took some risks that few Presidents in our history would have dared to take. Those risks are just now paying dividends and, what does the left do? Finger Rove as the "brilliant" one, of course. Maybe he is, but for a group that complains all too often about the President's habit of seeing issues as black and white, they seem to enjoy a bit of that themselves. Thanks, David

Comment by Silas Kain

Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:06:54 EST

Several years ago, as an impressionable young lad, I had an opportunity to be at a breakfast event for Ronald Reagan where his daughter Maureen was speaking. During the social hour she was introduced to a GOP Governor and his "aide." Maureen remarked that his aide was the "kingmaker" and "we all know that the 'kingmaker' is more powerful than the king." Those words always stuck with me. A President's success is dependent upon the people appointed to serve in the Administration. President Bush trusts Karl Rove -- as he should. Mr. Rove weilds quite a bit of power in Washington because he is, after all, the kingmaker. He also has a very able person in Andy Card as Chief of Staff. My remark about Mr. Rove being the Antichrist was more facetious than anything else. Good Christians know that the Antichrist will come out of Europe not Washington, D.C.

Comment by David Flanagan

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:07:30 EST

One thing unique about Mr. Rove, though. Usually, it's the President who gets the label "antichrist." In this case, Rove is good enough to have earned the label for himself. At least from one person. David

Comment by Dave Nalle

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 20:38:20 EST

Wow, let's not call him Karl Rove anymore. The cat is out of the bag. Let's just call him Dr. Doom. He clearly has the powers of a great supervillain to be everywhere at once, influencing minds and subverting the whole world to evil. Dave

Comment by Silas Kain

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 19:08:08 EST

Ketamine doses are passed out in the far reaches on both sides of the aisle as far as I can see. Karl Rove is a brilliant man. He got G.W. Bush to where he is and deserves a round of applause. I don't agree with much that Mr. Rove stands for but I admire his tenacity and ability to be a modern day Rasputin. Hmmm, could it be that Karl Rove is the Antichrist?

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:32:03 EST

So this is what happens when you dose self-appointed 'murrican "pundits" with ketamine. They almost disappear up each other's assholes.

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:47:03 EST

David, it's true and a good thing that you see reflections of right wing overreactions to Clinton in the crazy Bush haters. It's definitely a good idea to check your head on some of this stuff. However, Clinton really was far, far, far worse a character than Dubya ever dreamt of. Leaving aside anything to do with actual public policy (liberal vs conservative), Clinton was just exponentially more corrupt a personal figure. Some kind of scenario like the congressman suggested here with the fabricated documents really would not have been beyond the pale for Clinton. That bastard just almost starts to make Nixon look good.

Comment by David Flanagan

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 15:09:52 EST

The only salvoes the right should send back are gales of laughter. Excellent point DrPat. I think that is exactly the right strategy. Hal: All I can say is, "been there, done that" with President Clinton. I thought of him as some omnipotent power doing all these harmful things and letting my undies get all knotted. At the end of his term, he left office and someone new came in. This is the good news of democracy. The bad news for liberals is that President Bush is a far better politician than they ever dreamed. He's a guy willing to take reasonable risks for great rewards, he's able to work within his party to move both the party and his own personal agenda forward, and he's steady on his feet. Oh, and he's picked excellent people to work for him. Karl Rove is one of those. Thanks, David

Comment by DrPat

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:14:49 EST

The contention that Karl Rove is at the bottom (or the center) of every Republican or remotely-conservative victory for the past 4-5 years is very amusing. I hope to continue to read about Rovian power from the left. David, you're right that conservatives need to take a different tack. The only salvoes the right should send back are gales of laughter.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:02:56 EST

"You know, if Rove is as good as Democrats and Liberals say he is, then you might as well give up hope now." It's not just Rove, but the thought is correct - this is a key turning point in time for what America will be. It is a scary picture, even though you try to mask it with dismissiveness. For instance, another commentator describes a few other situations:

[Doug Wead has started beck-pedalling on his tapes of Bush] On Wednesday, he announced that "I have come to realize that personal relationships are more important than history." He pledged to direct all book profits to charity and to hand the tapes over to Bush. Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.). A former dentist, Norwood had grown infuriated at the callousness of health maintenance organizations and made a patient's bill of rights his crusade. Bush sought to kill Norwood's bill by promoting a toothless, industry-friendly alternative. In the spring of 2001, Norwood blasted Bush's sham bill as worse than the status quo and vowed to "personally exhaust every effort to defeat" Bush's plan. Then Norwood was summoned to the White House. As one newspaper reported, he "emerged from the hourlong meeting looking haggard" and instantly announced his support for Bush's bill. Consider John Weaver, a top advisor to John McCain. The lodestar of Weaver's ideology for years had been hatred of Karl Rove — who, Weaver complained, had spread vicious slanders about him when the two worked in Texas politics. Weaver was strategist for McCain's guerrilla campaign against Bush and Rove in 2000. But then, last spring, Bush and the popular McCain began barnstorming the country together. It came out that their rapprochement had followed a meeting between Weaver and his arch-nemesis, Rove, whom he called "gracious" — perhaps the first time anyone had ever called Rove this. Weaver declared that the pair had "a very honest and very frank discussion, and let's just leave it at that." In 2002, John DiIulio, the former director of Bush's faith-based initiative, criticized the administration. "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm," he said, fleshing out the critique with damning details. The next day, DiIulio announced that "my criticisms were groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples. I sincerely apologize and am deeply remorseful." Or, as Galileo said of his declaration that the Earth revolves around the sun: "With sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me." If I recall, this statement was preceded by an honest and frank discussion.

Just trying for some perspective, David.