Transterrestrial Musings

« Some Heretical Thoughts | Main | Preaching To The Nonchoir »

The "Divisive" Karl Rove

I think that this is supposed to be a news story about Karl Rove's resignation. But this belongs on the editorial page (and it's unlikely that one would find it on the editorial page of the newspaper in which it appears):

Mr. Rove established himself as the political genius behind the rise of George W. Bush and the brief period of united Republican rule. But he did it largely through highly divisive policies and campaign tactics, such as the attacks on Democratic rival John Kerry [in] the 2004 campaign. That strategy appears finally to have backfired, as seen in the Republican loss of Congress in 2006, and Mr. Bush's low poll numbers.

This is not facts. It's extremely biased opinion. And in fact not just biased, but politically clueless. It is not just a viewing of recent history through a fun-house mirror--it is a rewriting of it.

Karl Rove "attacked" John Kerry? This is written as though Kerry ran a high-minded campaign, above the fray, ignoring the supposed mud slinging coming from the Bush campaign, putting forth reasoned, coherent policy positions that were drowned out in the public debate by the Bush noise and slander machine. As always, it was only George Bush and Karl Rove who were "divisive," not the gentle, noble Democrats.

This is, of course, a description of the 2004 campaign that could come only from someone living on Bizarro World. It ignores all of the incessant Bush bashing from the Democrats, and Kerry, whose only message, and claim to the presidency (other than that he was a Vietnam war hero), was that he wouldn't be George Bush. Every campaign speech, every policy paper emitting from the campaign was "Bush policies have been disastrous. If it's a Bush policy, I'll do the opposite." There was rarely an actual specific policy proposal, and when there was, it was never without reference to Bush.

I also suspect that the reporter is conflating the actions of the Swift Boat Vets with Karl Rove's campaign, though there was never any evidence of coordination, and the former had plenty of their own reasons to not want to see a President Kerry, which they stated many times. They may have "attacked" him, but they were up front about why they did so.

But no, in the minds of the MSM, it is George Bush who is the "divider," not the Democrats and the left who have been vilifying him for over six years now as an election stealer, a warmonger, a chimpanzee, a torturer, a war criminal--despite his acquiescing to (in partnership with Ted Kennedy) much of the liberal political agenda, with an expansion of Medicare, federal control over education, a new amnesty for illegal immigrants, and a general expansion of government on almost all fronts. All of which was pushed by the evil mastermind, Karl Rove.

And the notion that it was Rove's "divisive" campaign tactics that were the cause of the Republican loss of the Congress last year is an analysis so simplistic (and wrong) that it would be embarrassing to see it in a college newspaper, let alone the new crown jewel of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.

To the degree that Karl Rove was responsible for the loss of Congress, it was because of the degree to which Bush had lost his base due to the (Rove-initiated) big-government and big-spending initiatives described above, and the frustration of the country with the poorly managed war in Iraq (which is not to say, of course, that the country wanted us to surrender, despite the Democrats' fantasies).

If George Bush was the right-wing maniac of popular myth, he would never have hired Karl Rove, because Rove's philosophy was to gain political power for Republicans by co-opting what he perceived to be the Democrats' superficially appealing issues (taking some lessons from Bill Clinton and Dick Morris in "triangulation"). He thought that by making conservatism "compassionate," he could repackage it to sell to the independents. But he underestimated the degree to which it would alienate the core base, particularly when he and Bush called them "bigots" and xenophobes because they simply wanted to see the law enforced fairly.

But no. In the mind of a liberal Democrat reporter (and no other type could have possibly written the quoted paragraph), only Republicans are "divisive." And that "divisiveness" is the source of all evil in the country. If only the Republicans had been more bi-partisan (perhaps by embracing Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich in addition to Ted Kennedy?), they wouldn't have lost the election last year.

Of course, the truly sad thing is that the Journal apparently has no editors who can catch such things, either. You'd think they'd have at least caught the missing preposition in the second sentence. Another demonstration of superiority of the vaunted layers of editors and fact checkers of the MSM over us lowly bloggers, I guess.

[Update in the afternoon]

Rove has a higher approval rating than Congress. But then, who doesn't?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 13, 2007 09:43 AM

Comments

No improvement since Rupert took over yet. They don't realize that there is a turnover almost always in the 6th year of a President's term.
Reagan, Ford, disastrously, Johnson, FDR, et al.

Posted by narciso at August 13, 2007 10:07 AM

Tell us how you really feel about the 2004 Democratic Presidential, Rand. Don't hold back!

I found this line interesting:
That strategy appears finally to have backfired, as seen in the Republican loss of Congress in 2006, and Mr. Bush's low poll numbers.

uh, the 2007 Congressional poll numbers are far lower than President Bush's numbers. (aside: since when has the journalistic style changed to referring to the POTUS as Mr., particularly when Hillary is refered to as Senator)

Posted by Leland at August 13, 2007 10:08 AM

"This is not facts. It's extremely biased opinion. And in fact not just biased, but politically clueless."

Amen.

BTW: My URL keeps getting my messages kicked out because:
"Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: bl•gsp"
I use bl•gsp•t, so I guess that's what your filter refers to. As to WHY my Bl•gsp•t (obviously I cannot write the actual word) URL should get me blocked, I have no clue.

Posted by Mister Snitch! at August 13, 2007 10:32 AM

Because blog*spot generates such a plethora of blog spam that I'd be inundated with it if I allowed it. Get a real domain.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 13, 2007 10:34 AM

Rand, Rand, Rand. You simply don't understand the Liberal Lexicon.

divisive - disagreeing with a liberal.

fascist - someone who disagrees with a liberal.

bipartisan - agreeing with the Democrats.

"growing in office" - a former conservative who turns around and starts agreeing with liberals.

"stealing an election" - what Bush did by not letting the Democrats steal the 2000 election. This is similar to criminals whose robbery attempt fails complaining that they were robbed.

"Swiftboating" - a bunch of Vietnam veterans stating their unfavorable opinion of John Kerry.

Posted by Larry J at August 13, 2007 10:37 AM

I remember being utterly confused when I first heard the verb "swiftboating." My thought: They made a verb for people who dis what a political candidate says about their pasts? When did that piece of history repeat itself? Of course, many lefties don't think that was what the Swift Vets were about...

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at August 13, 2007 10:56 AM

The Journal editorial page is solidly conservative following the "free people, free markets". The news department is separate and is much less conservative as a rule.

BTW - referring to the president as "Mr. Bush" is standard WSJ style.

Posted by KeithK at August 13, 2007 11:22 AM

"That strategy appears finally to have backfired, as seen in the Republican loss of Congress in 2006, and Mr. Bush's low poll numbers."

Yes, "biased" and "clueless." The loss of Congress and the low poll numbers have nothing to do with Rove's political strategies. They're due entirely to the Administration's terrible mistakes in their conduct of the Iraq war. So, Republicans, don't be so hard on the Journal, they're just pleading guilty to a lesser charge.

Posted by Dan Friedman at August 13, 2007 11:23 AM

"swiftboating" -- telling an unpalatable (and fact checkable) truth about a Democrat. (Kerry is going to release, as promised, his entire war record any day now and blow these Swiftboat accusations out of the water. After all, just as not every veteran of the "Winter of Discontent" served directly next to George Washington and thus could have no credible beliefs about him, none of his accusers actually served on Kerry's boat. [Well, okay, one of them did, but he was more than balanced by Kerry supporters who claimed to have served under him on his boat but didn't.] Just as wingmen who fly at twice the speed of sound next to the squadron leader are *really* serving with him, the 200 or so Swiftboaters didn't really serve *with* Kerry because they were almost always whole yards away from him. What could they possibly know. Oh, and the *FULL RECORD* which will totally back up Kerry will be released real soon now.)

Posted by JorgXMcKie at August 13, 2007 11:26 AM

"Since when has the journalistic style changed to referring to the POTUS as Mr., particularly when Hillary is refered to as Senator?"

Have you ever read Tom Clancy's novels Debt of Honor and Executive Orders? SPOILER WARNING!

After the resignation of the Vice President, Jack Ryan is appointed VP and confirmed by the Congress. Shortly afterward, the President is assassinated, and Ryan automatically becomes President. The former VP sees an opportunity and arranges for his resignation letter to disappear from the Secretary of State's desk. He then claims publicly that he never actually resigned, and that he is now President. A Constitutional succession crisis results.

During the crisis, members of the press begin addressing Ryan as "Mr. Ryan" rather than as "Mr. President". This is their way of helping to undermine his legitimacy and intensify the crisis -- partly for reasons of partisan politics, but mostly because it helps sell newspapers and boost ratings.

Back to the real world. Why would journalists refer to President Bush as "Mr. Bush" instead of "Mr. President"? For exactly the same reasons.

Posted by Pat at August 13, 2007 11:37 AM

The "news" pages of the WSJ has resembled the rest of the left-tilted MSM since the days of Bill Clinton. It is still amazing how left-wing rhetoric becomes the conventional storyline in a newspaper account of a fairly straightforward story, as Rand demonstrates.

Posted by Forbes at August 13, 2007 11:41 AM

"No improvement since Rupert took over yet. They don't realize that there is a turnover almost always in the 6th year of a President's term.
Reagan, Ford, disastrously, Johnson, FDR, et al."

Two quibbles:

1. There's no such thing as the sixth year of a president's term. All presidential terms are four years, although some Presidents have more than one. What you meant was "the 6th year of a President's administration."

2. What are you referring to as the sixth year of Ford's administration? He was only in office for two and a half years.

Posted by at August 13, 2007 11:43 AM

Bravo, Rand Simberg. The WSJ article completely confuses cause and effect when talking about personal attacks on Kerry and Bush. I dislike Karl Rove because he made the Bush admin extremely populist, and put his Republican loyalty above any principles that Republican politicians claim to stand for. Nonetheless, he is a brilliant tactician, and the kind of criticism like we read in WSJ, is nothing but contempt for conservatives displayed by our "intellectuals".

Posted by Ivan Lenin at August 13, 2007 11:46 AM

I agree, the paragraph you quoted was very poorly done and should have been deleted -- or at least modified to show some resemblance of truth

Posted by Curtis at August 13, 2007 12:03 PM

Kark rove and GW have been a disaster for republicans in this country. The two of them are big government republicans. Dick Chenny is a disaster - who runs with a VP who can never be president.

Posted by tom at August 13, 2007 12:50 PM

Kark rove and GW have been a disaster for republicans in this country. The two of them are big government republicans. Dick Chenny is a disaster - who runs with a VP who can never be president.

The true disaster is your spelling and general grammar. Perhaps you should apply for "No Child Left Behind" benefits.

Posted by Mac at August 13, 2007 12:59 PM

Keep dreaming, pal. You and your right-wing buddies can have all the foolish opinions you like, but you can't change certain easily observed facts simply by wishing them away. Rove and his ilk will get what they deserve--if not prison (and that's still a possibility), then at the very least, utter contempt in the history books.

Posted by John Ettorre at August 13, 2007 01:04 PM

Whatever your own opinion about Bush and Rove's behavior, the important thing is this: how did people who originally opposed and disliked Bush but rallied around him after 9/11 perceive his actions? Victory in war depends on unity, and the loyal opposition thought Bush and Rove were putting domestic political gains above holding us together in the common purpose.

Posted by Curt at August 13, 2007 01:31 PM

Since the days of Clinton? The front page of the Journal has been at war with the editorial page since Reagan was in office. The editors of the journal never seem to exert any editorial control.

Posted by at August 13, 2007 01:41 PM

The article was on the editorial page under "opinion"

Posted by Hal at August 13, 2007 01:49 PM

I think the Journal and the Times say "Mr. Bush" as an alternative to "Bush", not "President Bush." In other words, USA Today would say this:

President Bush stated today that black is black. Bush refused to budge from his divisive, simplistic statement even when pressed by more intelligent members of the White House press corps...

But the Journal and the Times would say this:

President Bush stated today that black is black. Mr. Bush refused to budge from his divisive, simplistic statement even when pressed by more intelligent members of the White House press corps...

That is, the two leading New York papers consider the "Mr." an old-fashioned mark of respect, not disrespect, a sign that distinguishes them from the yellow press.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 13, 2007 02:12 PM

Rove and his ilk will get what they deserve--if not prison...then at the very least, utter contempt in the history books.

You think? But I think you're full of shit, and so deluded you couldn't predict an apple would hit the ground if you saw it falling from a tree.

Fortunately, we only need to wait a few years and we'll see who's right. Of course, if you have any actual wit and memory, I can make you sweat a bit, awaiting history's judgment, by whispering one small word, the name of the last character who raised such a foaming froth of hate from folks like you in his lifetime, and whose ghostly ass you poor dodos now need to contort yourself into kissing:

Reagan.

Is it just you, or did it get a little chilly all of a sudden in the echo chamber? Bwa ha ha.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 13, 2007 02:29 PM

Let me join in the whispering...

Reagan

Posted by Mac at August 13, 2007 02:34 PM

...the loyal opposition thought Bush and Rove were putting domestic political gains above holding us together in the common purpose.

Just because the "loyal" opposition thinks things doesn't cause those things to align themselves with reality, sadly. Or, in this case, fortunately.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 13, 2007 02:43 PM

Thanks Carl. You saved me from having to answer that knot head.

This constant, "...everybody in the Bush WH needs to do time" statement is so much crap it could fertilize 10,000 acres. I never see WHAT they need to do time for, I've never seen an actual CHARGE or even a well founded accusation of what the evil Bushies have done.

Beyond the obvious I mean, disagreeing with the Democrats.

Thank God that's not illegal (yet), I'd be doing life. Without possibility of parole!

Posted by Steve at August 13, 2007 02:44 PM

I heard a one-line howler on ABC news morning this morning that contained three separate lies about Karl Rove: Karl Rove had a key role in the CIA leak case in which the administration uncovered a covert CIA operative in retaliation for Joe Wilson's article critical of intelligence on Iraq

So lets look at the three complete and utter falsehoods:
1. "Karl Rove had a key role..." Actually, Neither Karl Rove nor anyone else in his office had ANY role in the CIA leak case, other than being called to testify...that they had no role whatsoever...as hours of testimony amply demonstrate (as well as the fact that we now know that Dick Armitage, a Clinton holdover, not a Bush loyalist by any stretch of the imagination, was the one who leaked the fact that Plame worked at the CIA)
2. "in which the administration uncovered a covert CIA operative"... Except Valerie Plame was years away from being a "covert agent," even by the technical definition...she worked at CIA HQ! In addition, the use of "administration.." implies that it was someone in the white house or under the white house's inprimatur...But Armitage worked at State, has repeatedly been critical of the White House, but has also disavowed any direction to expose Plame from above.
3. "in retaliation for Joe Wilson's article.." Except, again, it wasn't the White House that leaked Plame's connection to Wilson, AND the fact that Wilson was put up for the trip in question BY HIS WIFE is in fact materially relevant to the discussion of his findings,which, to be clear, were different in his report to CIA than in his NYT article.

Posted by tom at August 13, 2007 02:55 PM

I guess the amazing thing to me is that ABC news morning can make a statement like this on NATIONAL radio news by one of their "objective" anchors, and then claim to be objective at all!

Posted by tom at August 13, 2007 02:56 PM

Half of the citizens of this country are incapable of understanding that repeating a lie at higher and higher volume levels does not make a truth, and believeing the CIA when everyone else did too is not a crime.

The media has ceased to have any credibility among thinking people, and gets by on selling slander and propaganda to people who are addicted to conspiracies.

How did our free press become our enemy's most effective weapon?

Posted by sherlock at August 13, 2007 03:12 PM

I have a neighbor who is a WSJ reporter. As liberal as they come. And assumes everybody else is also (like me -- I don't dare tell him I'm a conservative, he'd never speak to me again, and we have to get along).

From which I conclude that the circle he moves in (WSJ newsroom) is all liberal, all the time. I am constantly surprised that this is not more of a scandal. That the WSJ is part-and-parcel of the MSM, except for the editorial pages, of course

Posted by Park Slope Pubby at August 13, 2007 03:43 PM

...[unworthy of] the new crown jewel of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.

LOL. Good one.

Posted by CJ at August 13, 2007 04:54 PM

No improvement since Rupert took over yet.

Is this the same Rupert who was donating money to the Hillary Clinton campaign?

Posted by Phil Fraering at August 13, 2007 05:55 PM

Phil, wealthy individuals often give to both parties. What you're buying is consideration of your personal goals, right? Why should you particularly care what the rest of the platform looks like?

You don't get to be rich by being ideologically rigid, as Pinch Sulzberg is finding out. But you do need to make friends with power, and gifts with Andrew Jackson's portrait on them will always make friends in high places.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 13, 2007 07:07 PM

the loyal opposition thought Bush and Rove were putting domestic political

What a crock.... What a laugh.....Loyal opposition....right as they practically shut down the National Security Agency monitoring of foreign communications...

We'll be lucky if the loyal opposition doesn't kill a few thousand Americans.

Posted by red at August 13, 2007 07:52 PM

"gifts with Andrew Jackson's portrait on them will always make friends in high places."

Are you freakin' serious? Stacks of Benjamins is the entry level now.

Show me some Samuel Chases, or perhaps a Woodrow Wilson or two, and then we can get some business done...

Posted by MG at August 13, 2007 07:53 PM

If Karl Rove was me, the press would be kissing his ass.

Posted by James Careville at August 13, 2007 08:57 PM

If Karl Rove was me, the press would be talking about his breasts.

Posted by Hillary Clinton at August 13, 2007 10:38 PM

" don't dare tell him I'm a conservative, he'd never speak to me again, and we have to get along"

I don't know your particular situation, but DON'T fall into that trap! If you have courage of your convictions, stand up for them. Believe me, I understand your situation. Part of my family is so hard-core left that they've basically ostracized me. I have never, not once, tried to pick a political fight with them. But they, on the other hand, seem to constantly be fishing for arguments with me. The few times I've risen to the bait was when I just couldn't take the BS anymore and had to politely disagree.

Do not cede the "moral high ground" to those who pretend to claim it!

Posted by Pat C at August 14, 2007 06:49 AM

The dangers of posting while in a hurry...my last comments were all over the place. Sorry, I can't begin to know your particular situation.

It may well be that you don't have any choice but to keep quiet and get along with the guy. But it galls me that things often turn out that way. The left continually assumes the mantle of "correctness", while the rest of us have to hide our fundamental disagreement just to be accepted into polite company.

They can't handle disagreement, therefore resort to painting anyone who does as either evil or stupid. Well, who are the real fools here? They're so convinced of their primacy that they can't see the hypocrisy of their own intolerance.

I shouldn't read blogs this early in the day. Gets the heart going too much...

Posted by Pat C at August 14, 2007 06:56 AM

Mr. Simberg is absolutely correct, and the dead giveaway is the use of the word "genius." Rove is a lot of things, but "genius" is not one of them. In the 2000 election, he ran a candidate with name recognition and pedigree against a weak opponent who had served under a president who was disgraced and could provide no coattails, and he still couldn't get a majority of Americans to vote for him. In 2004 his boy ran against one of the worst campaigns ever mounted. And as for the on-the-job performance of the White House he's inhabited and advised, it can only be described as pathetic. I see no evidence of genius anywhere. Hubris, a bulldog's tenacity and the willingness to sink to any depths to accomplish his aims, yes. Genius, no.

Posted by Andy S. at August 14, 2007 03:27 PM

> Dick Chenny is a disaster - who runs with a VP who can never be president.

The VP angling to be President habit is relatively new. What evidence is there that it's a good trend?

Posted by Andy Freeman at August 15, 2007 08:46 AM

Post a comment