Karl Rove Manipulates History with help from the Washington Post

Karl Rove is spreading the lie that the Bush Administration wanted to wait for the resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 2002. He started spreading this lie on the Charlie Rose show on public television and continued pushing it in another interview. This is from a story that appeared in the Washington Post:

Rove repeated his assertion in an interview yesterday, pointing to comments made by Democrats in 2002 that they wanted a vote. "For Democrats to suggest they didn't want to vote on it before the election is disingenuous," he said. The vote schedule, he said, was set by lawmakers. "We don't control that."

What Rove overlooks, though, is the fact that his former boss, you know "The Decider" was pushing for a vote before the 2002 midterm elections. This is from the same story:

News accounts and transcripts at the time show Bush arguing against delay. Asked on Sept. 13, 2002, about Democrats who did not want to vote until after the U.N. Security Council acted, Bush said, "If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, 'Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.' "

Then there is this beauty, also from the same story:

Two days later, Bush sent a proposed resolution to Capitol Hill, saying: "We've got to move before the elections."

Notwithstanding the above facts, though, this is how the Post characterized Rove's remarks in the story's first paragraph:

Former White House aide Karl Rove said yesterday it was Congress, not President Bush, who wanted to rush a vote on the looming war in Iraq in the fall of 2002, a version of events disputed by leading congressional Democrats and even some former Rove colleagues.

See, for the writer of this article, Rove wasn't lying, it's just that his version of events is "disputed." It is this kind of supposed objectivity that is killing newspapers' reputations.

If someone says something that isn't true, that is demonstratively untrue, then reporters can point that out in their stories. Instead, however, perhaps because the reporter likes Rove, or perhaps because the Post is afraid of Rove, or for whatever stupid reason, the article's author chooses to use the word "disputed."

Rove isn't stupid. He knows that Iraq will go down as one of the biggest diasters in American foreign policy history. It cost the GOP control of Congress in 2006, could cost it control of the White House in 2008, and he is doing his bit to rewrite history so it doesn't happen. And just like it did in 2002 when it pushed the story line of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, the Post is there to help him.

Was Department of Justice Targeting Supporters of John Edwards?

A Harper's Magazine writer, Scott Horton, who has been following what he describes as the political prosecutions of the Bush Justice Department has an interesting article on the Harper's website dated September 22, 2007. This is the first paragraph of the article:

In the last two weeks, two sources, one of them inside of the Justice Department, have told me that a scheme was hatched in the upper echelons of the Bush Administration shortly after it took office in 2001 or early in 2002. The project identified John Edwards and Hillary Clinton as likely Democratic challengers to President Bush, and identified prominent trial lawyers around the United States as the likely financial vehicle for Edward’s rise. It directed that their campaign finance records be fly-specked, and that offenses not be treated as administrative matters but rather as serious criminal offenses.

Horton claims that prosecutions of trial lawyers for campaign finance violations have actually taken place, but that the lawyers involved don't want to call attention to them because it would adversely affect their law practices. Horton believes that Rove was behind this effort, but that both Gonzales and Ashcroft knew about it and signed off. It is both fascinating and chilling.

Newsweek Reports Democratic Pressure Hasten Rove's Departure

Newsweek has an online story out that quotes an unnamed White House official as saying that Democratic pressure was the reason that Karl Rove, aka Bush's Brain, decided to leave before Bush's term ends in 2009. Apparently Rove thought that after the 2006 mid-term elections he could return to his former role in the White House. A Democratic-controlled Congress changed that by launching investigations of activities that were connected with Rove. Karl apparently then decided that his family needed him to leave his White House position. So not only Gonzales' departure but Rove's as well can be credited to a Democratic controlled Congress. Two good by-products of the country voting Democratic in 2006.

How Karl Rove Used Washington Media's Desire for "Saviness"

Jay Rosen, a communications professor, had an interesting blog entry on the reaction of political reporters and pundits to Rove's resignation. This is a quote from his entry:

Whereas I believe that the real—and undeclared—ideology of American journalism is savviness, and this is what made the press so vulnerable to the likes of Karl Rove.

Savviness! Deep down, that’s what reporters want to believe in and actually do believe in— their own savviness and the savviness of certain others (including operators like Karl Rove.) In politics, they believe, it’s better to be savvy than it is to be honest or correct on the facts. It’s better to be savvy than it is to be just, good, fair, decent, strictly lawful, civilized, sincere or humane.

While politicians and political reporters both love politics, there is a profound difference in the results of that love. When politicians and their helpers engage in politics, the purpose is not to be political, it is to gain power. With power comes the ability to make decisions that affect our society.

Political reporters, however, don't engage in politics at all, at least not in the sense of trying to obtain power. They are like sportswriters in that they are covering an activity that they love, but, like sportswriters, they can't play.

This means that they end up focusing on the part of politics that is concerned with winning elections as opposed to actually exercising power. Hence their love of writing about operators like Rove and their dislike for covering politicians who are actually interested in policy.

Combine those character traits with the fact that most political reporters who work for large corporations like Time, the Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, and others, don't really need government programs that help the average American, and you end up with a media that is just interested in being "savy" and not interested in actual policy. It is relatively easy for an intelligent guy like Karl Rove to manipulate those personalities.

Click on the link in this entry's title to read Professor Rosen's complete blog entry.

Why is Rove Attacking Clinton?

This article that appeared on an Australian newspaper's website on Monday, August 20, 2007, raises an intriguing question: why is Karl Rove going on television and saying that Clinton won't win the presidency? Does he worry about her or is he trying to get Democrats to rally to her because he thinks that she is easy to beat? According to the article this is the tactic that Rove used in 2004 because he thought that Kerry would be easier to beat than John Edwards. Of course, it could just be that Rove is, as Clinton herself says, "obsessed" with her.

Washington Post Article on Rove's Use of Taxpayer Dollars for Political Power

The Washington Post has a great story on how Karl Rove used the power and largess of the Federal government to try and bolster the political fortunes of Republicans. The Post also has a map that shows how often two cabinet officials and/or their deputies visted various states before the 2006 mid-term elections. The two cabinet officials were the Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao and the Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. There is an investigation going on by a committee of the House of Representatives to see if this practice violated Federal law.

It Doesn't Matter Who Dems Nominate, Rove & His Allies Will Try to Smear Them

Here is an article that appeared on the Forbes website on Friday, August 17, 2007, about Rove attacking Hillary Clinton. The thrust of the article is that while Rove attacking Clinton may help her in the short term, it could hurt her in the long term by raising her negatives and concerns about her electability.

Look, here is the problem with that analysis: Rove and his allies will attack anyone the Democrats nominate and try to smear them. This is the party that attacked Vietnam vets like Max Cleland and John Kerry to help elect Republicans who avoided service in Vietnam. This is the party that impeached a Democratic president for allegedly lying about private consensual sex. This is a party that launched over 150 investigations of the Clinton administration when it was in office. It doesn't matter who Democrats nominate, they are going to attack him or her.

There are problems with Hillary Clinton as a nominee, but there are also problems with Obama, Edwards, or anyone else. There is no such thing as a the perfect candidate and there is no candidate who won't be attacked by Rovian Republicans. The question for Democrats is whether our candidate can take a punch and whether he or she can deliver a punch.

Bubble-Boy To Change Spin but Not Policy

According to the Washington Post, Bubble-Boy aka Our President, plans to try changing the spin on his Iraq policy, but not the policy itself. He plans to start telling the American people that he wants to draw down American troops in Iraq in 2008, provided, of course, that security concerns are met. Obviously, this is some Bush BS, or BBS for short, designed to give political cover to vulnerable Republicans in next year's elections without changing his policy that got us into this screwed up mess in the first place.

One of the many problems with the Bush Administration is that Bubble-Boy and King Karl Rove don't really care about how their policies impact on people othen than their wealthy supporters, they just care if they can sell those policies. There is little evidence that Bush cares about the fate of the troops serving in Iraq, or the fate of the independent contractors serving in Iraq, or how much money this adventure has cost America. He just cares whether he can sell the policy and help his party regain control of Congress so they can continue pandering to their wealthy supporters.

The media, though, may be finally catching on to the tricks of BB and King Karl. This is a quote from the Post article:

Yet key Republican senators have indicated that they would not be satisfied with a change in political spin over a real change in strategy. In a speech on the Senate floor after a White House meeting yesterday, John W. Warner (R-Va.) set the tone, declaring this "a time in our history unlike any I have ever witnessed before." Warner recalled that Congress has voted to require Bush to demonstrate progress in Iraq or detail how he will alter his strategy, adding that he warned the White House to take it seriously.

The significance of the above quote isn't what John Warner believes. The significance lies in the fact that the Post's reporters are using those comments to point out that the "new" Bush message is the same as the "old" Bush message. Two years ago, maybe even one year ago, a story in the Post would not have included the above quote. The media, like most Americans, have reached the end of their patience with BB's and KK's antics.

Reader Submission: Arming Iraq's Sunnis a Risk

A reader sent us the following email:

Armed Sunnis in Iraq: potential short-term gains, long-term risks (AP) 07/03/07

BAGHDAD: The U.S. tactic of using armed Sunni tribesmen in the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq offers short-term gains to weaken the insurgency, but could set the stage for a full-scale sectarian civil war when the Americans begin to draw down their forces.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/03/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Armed-Sunnis.php

So, schrub is using questionable tactics to make his "surge" look like it is working, knowing that these tactic is going to make things worse in the long run. Is this another one of ROVE'S carefully choreographed 'show' or a real new way out?

"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation [America], we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." George Bush Sr, interview with Sarah McClendon in December 1992

Mitt Romney Strapped Dog to Roof of Family Car, Dog Crapped Over Car

Okay, so this is not a dog bites man story, but still it is instructive on so many levels. According to the story linked to in the Boston Globe Mitt Romney was once taking his family on a vacation from Boston to Ontario for the summer. He put his children and wife in the car and then strapped his dog to the roof in a carrier for which he has constructed a windshield. Apparently the dog had to go after several hours and crapped down the back of the car. Good ol' Mitt pulls into a gas station, hoses down the car and dog, and then puts the dog back in the rooftop carrier.

If you want to know something about a person, check out the way they treat people who have to serve them and the way they treat animals. If a person is rude to a waitress, or to an employee, someone who can't really fight back, or if they are mean or cruel to animals, then that person is an inconsiderate jerk. We think that Mitt certainly fits the description.

Of course, we may be overly sensitive. After all we have been told by the media for the last six years or so that the "cute" nicknames that Bush gives his friends shows his affection for them. Names like "Turdblossom" for Karl Rove and "Fredo" for Alberto Gonzales. Personally, if one of our friends called us "Turdblossom" we would be reconsidering our relationship with that person. But, hey, that's just us. Maybe Karl Rove likes to be referred to a flowering piece of human waste. Come to think of it, maybe Bush has the right idea after all.

Presidential Candidate "Branding"

If you click here, you will go to a website that is studying the various presidential candidates both Democratic and Republican from a "branding" viewpoint. It is a website created by two companies that have joined up on this project. This is from the home page of the site:

Branding. It’s nothing new. In fact, “branding” is a clear example of business jargon that has penetrated popular culture. From package goods to pop stars, everything and everyone has a unique brand. However, understanding the nuances of a brand is first recognizing that a brand isn’t just a collection of logos or slogans or trademarks.

A brand is all about consumer experience represented by a collection of images and ideas that help to uniquely differentiate products or services that appear to be identical.

Brand preferences and other reactions are created by the accumulation of encounters, both directly relating to its use, and through the influence of messaging, advertising, design and public relations.

What could this mean for American politics? Arguably, candidates no longer run as themselves, they run as an extension of who the American public perceives them to be.

One of the areas in which Republicans have been ahead of Democrats is applying marketing principles to political campaigns and political communications. "Branding" is one such concept. We need to make sure that our candidates "brand" themselves before Republicans "brand" them.

What Karl Rove tries to do is to convince voters that his candidates' opponents are not acceptable alternatives to his candidates. Thus, even if voters don't like his candidates, they will still vote for them, or, perhaps not vote. Either way, his candidate is in a better position. So, while he is trying to build a positive brand for his candidate he is busy trying to tarnish the brand of the opponent.

This is why talk radio and Fox News have been so important for the Republicans. They are media institutions that both build up the Republicans' brand and tear down the Democrats' brand. What we need to do with blogs is the same thing, that is, tear down the Republican "brand" and build up the Democratic "brand."

Another Example of Bush & Rove Politicizing the Justice Department

There is another article today, 4.1.2007, in the Washington Post about how the Bush administration has put more insiders into U.S. Attorney positions than prior administrations. In Minnesota, for example, a 32 year old "Bushie" replaced a 58 year old who had extensive experience in both state and federal prosecutions.

This quote is from the article: The people chosen as chief federal prosecutors on a temporary or permanent basis since early 2005 include 10 senior aides to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, according to an analysis of government records. Several came from the White House or other government agencies. Some lacked experience as prosecutors or had no connection to the districts in which they were sent to work, the records and biographical information show.

Few 32 year old attorneys have the maturity or professional skill to exercise the discretion called for in being a U.S. Attorney. The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, Greg White, had been the Lorain County Prosecutor for 20 years before becoming U.S. Attorney. He had both legal and administrative experience. When you compare White's experience with the experience of some of the people mentioned in the Post article, you realize that there is no comparison.

One of the things that King Karl and Bubble-Boy like to do is operate behind the scenes. They were planning to put these political appointees in key states who could then threaten voting rights groups during the 2008 election cycle with criminal prosecutions. One of the benefits of the current focus on the fired U.S. Attorneys is that it has brought this operation to light. Once it has been exposed, it will be much harder for KK and BB to pull it off.

That's one reason why it is necessary for Democrats to keep flogging this scandal. We need to make sure that the media stays alerted to what is happening so that political prosecutions aren't brought against progressive organizations in 2008.