Posts Tagged ‘Rove’

Sarah Palin’s “Redneck Whiteboard”(Video)

Saturday, July 27th, 2013

Redneck Whiteboard

I take some knocks from a few of the haughty sorts of Republican who believe the conservative base of the GOP mustn’t be trusted with leadership. In their view, riffraff like me are simply “too extreme” (read: consistent) to be taken seriously.  Their shills head out onto to television to offer the best thinking of the establishment’s intelligentsia, but despite their theorizing, and their whiteboards, they simply don’t understand why the average conservative can’t see things their way.  One of the things that causes some eye-rolling amongst the “elites” in my own locality is to mention my ongoing, unwavering support of Sarah Palin.  In their view, she epitomizes the sort of conservatism they abhor: Honest, plain-spoken, and trustworthy fighters who tend not to bite their tongues.  In this context, as the eyes roll, I hear in response: “Oh, that makes perfect sense.”  On Greta’s show on FoxNews last night, Governor Palin displayed these simple virtues that make GOP establishment hacks roll their eyes.  On full display was a white envelope,  covered in the names of scandals surrounding Barack Obama.  In open mockery of Karl “Tokyo” Rove, she called it her “redneck whiteboard.” Here’s the video:

One can only imagine how this went over within the confines of the Republican establishment’s inner circle.  Gov. Palin’s plain-spoken truth on the matter is why despite the eye-rolling of the Republican elite, the conservative base of the party supports the former Alaska governor.  Her message is much too rare in GOP circles, and while the establishment in Washington DC helps to delay and obfuscate on Barack Obama’s behalf, the truth out in fly-over country is that the American people want the answers on all those issues listed on Palin’s “redneck whiteboard,” and despite the assistance of certain Republicans in helping to cover them, eventually, we’re going to have at the truth.  One might run out the clock on this administration, but one cannot run out the clock on the truth.  Governor Palin rightly points out that the 2008 McCain campaign failed to make an issue of any of the negative material swirling around Barack Obama, ultimately forbidding her from raising questions about his personal history on the campaign trail.  How can anybody be expected to win when they’re fighting with one hand tied?  Governor Palin is right: It’s time to deal with these scandals, and Barack Obama should be ashamed for pretending they are all phony, when it’s clear there is so much more to these matters.

NOW Politico Notices Rove’s Apparent Leanings?

Saturday, March 31st, 2012

Rove? Biased? Get Out!

Permit me a moment’s chuckle as I consider the brilliant “journalism” of  Here is an on-line “political news site” that brought to light claims by various parties against Herman Cain, along with other Pulitzer-Quality journalism that indicates just how spiffy they really are over at Politico.  Now they’ve posted a story by Kenneth Vogel and Keach Hagey speculating on the possibility that Karl Rove is assisting Mitt Romney.  Now that’s journalism!  Heck, that may qualify as outright rocket science.  I find the article laughable, but for the fact that they seem to be quite serious in their approach, a fact that makes the article all the more excruciatingly gut-busting.  Let’s be honest, shall we?  That they’ve only now arrived at the conclusion that Karl Rove might be pushing for one particular candidate is embarrassing.  Where have these guys been?

As their opening argument, they offered this:

“But it’s hard to miss, among all of Rove’s Fox commentary and Wall Street Journal columns, that he seems to favor one candidate over the others.”

No way!  Shocking!  Karl Rove favors one candidate over the others?  Is it possible?

“Over the last year, Rove has used these powerful media platforms to systematically undercut every rising Romney challenger in succession while lauding Romney’s victories as “historic.” The pattern has gotten under the skin of the supporters of Romney’s challengers, who argue that Rove has more ties to Romney and his super PAC than he is disclosing to his media audiences, and thus has no business assessing the Republican primary race as a purportedly independent analyst.”

I’d like to know what this pair of investigative gurus have been doing these last eight months.  In fairness, I will say they have done an excellent job of laying out some pertinent facts about Rove’s connections to Romney via his SuperPac, American Crossroads GPS.  What I couldn’t quite understand was why they suddenly felt the need to tell us what has been painfully obvious for some time, but they managed to tell us why they’re really concerned about Karl Rove’s machinations at this late date anyway:

“Santorum and Gingrich are both former Fox News contributors, and have been beating Romney handily, in terms of airtime, on the so-called “Fox News primary” throughout the campaign. But they are not winning the all-important Karl Rove Primary – significant both for his media prominence and his association with the super PAC American Crossroads and a sister group that together plan to spend as much as $300 million attacking President Barack Obama and other Democrats in the general election.”

That makes more sense.  It’s not that the writers are so concerned for the unfairness they document in Rove’s treatment of other candidates so much as the fact that Rove will certainly be turning his powerful machine against Barack Obama. Nevertheless, they did manage to put up a list of Rove’s dirty deeds, and it seems to match with what I have seen:


  • When Romney was being ridiculed for offering to bet Rick Perry $10,000 in last December’s debate, Rove told Hannity he “didn’t think it was a big mistake,” and then pivoted to attacking Gingrich for his talk of a lunar base.
  • Later that month, when Gingrich complained about being carpet-bombed by negative ads paid for by Romney’s super PAC in Iowa, Rove called him a “whiner.”
  • When Gingrich was leading the polls in January, Rove dinged Gingrich for calling Romney “a liberal” and suggesting that poor children should work as janitors in schools.
  • In mid-February, as Santorum was coming off a batch of wins, Rove said Santorum’s views on contraception, particularly within the bounds of marriage, “appears to be judgmental,” before going on to call Gingrich a “whiner” once again.
  • As things were looking close between Romney and Santorum in Michigan, Rove accused the press of “rooting for Santorum to win even though they are hammering him with a lot of social things” because “the media is rooting for Obama to win.”
  • On the night of the Michigan and Arizona primaries, he echoed the Romney campaign’s complaints about Santorum’s robocalls to Democrats and called out Santorum for labeling Obama a “snob” for wanting everyone to have a college education. That, Rove said, “hurt more than what you might think” because “most of us believe that higher education is a means for prosperity.”
  • In his Wall Street Journal column following those primaries, he declared the primary “solidly in Mitt Romney’s direction” and proceeded to reiterate Santorum’s “unforced errors,” from the college comment to his dismissal of John F. Kennedy’s speech about the separation between church and state.
  • Even when Rove is critical of Romney, as he was in a Feb. 1 Journal column declaring the “Romney campaign is tilted too heavily toward biography and not nearly enough toward ideas,” he acts like a supportive adviser doling out constructive criticism, tossing in lines boosting Romney and chiding Gingrich for their respective handling of Paul Ryan’s budget.

That’s a pretty decent laundry list of recent Rove doings, but as they point out, there are more complete lists including Tommy Christopher’s at Mediaite, penned back in December, noting that Rove was doing a number on Gingrich at the time, but he listed many others.

Of course, it’s difficult to say with any precision what may be lingering between Karl Rove’s ears.  I’ve never had any particular problem expressing my own concerns about his whiteboard antics on FoxNews, including some of the garbage he was heaving in the direction of Sarah Palin late last summer.  As The Politico piece concludes, Rove is part of the GOP establishment now, and his antics merely prove the point that if he’s involved, it’s because he has a dog in this hunt, as I asserted all those months ago.  As I said then, Karl Rove is a master manipulator and this is how he operates.  None of this is surprising to me, and I’m stunned that it’s taken Politico this long to notice.

Cain Categorically Denies Allegations – Still No Proof He’s Lying(Updated)

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

Justifiably Righteous Indignation!

Here’s the funny part:  At this point, I’m inclined to believe him.  More, there is a backlash brewing among conservatives who suspect this has been a hatchet-job, and not necessarily directed by Democrats, and there is that segment within the conservative movement that is substantially ready to tell the media to kiss off.  I find it interesting because after ten days of accusations, rumors, and an uninterrupted stream of innuendo, we still have exactly nothing to suggest that this is more than a load of manure.   After more than a day having elapsed, Gloria Allred still hasn’t provided those alleged “sworn statements” to the public for examination.  If I were the purveyor of hamburgers, I would ask simply: “Where’s the beef?”

There is the so-called fifth accuser who isn’t actually accusing anything.  The media is referencing unnamed sources who are friends of unnamed accusers.  Most of the people involved in this “story,” apart from Bialek and Cain are unnamed.  Let me tell you what I suspect:

Last week, it was the idea of providing the notion of Herman Cain as a harasser.  When that failed to bring him down, and people basically questioned the entire “unnamed accusers” business, they dug up one willing to go on the record.  They trotted her out Monday, and now they have “established a pattern,” but a pattern of what?  I see a pattern of lies and deceit, but not on Herman Cain’s side of this.   What I see is a rush to convict Cain of exhibiting a “pattern” based on the accusations of one woman of increasingly dubious history and motives, brought to light by one of the worst ambulance-chasing celebrity attorneys in all recorded history.  Then we have the absolute spectacle of Karl Rove telling us that Allred adds credibility.  Again, I ask: In what sort of world does Karl Rove live that Gloria Allred’s involvement adds credibility to the claims of Bialek?

Add to this the utter absurdity of Touré appearing on MSNBC to talk about the “predatory black sexuality” of African-American men?  WHAT?  Am I to understand that this is to be the norm in media?  Are we really supposed to believe that the seriousness of the charge supersedes the validity of the evidence and testimony?  Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t pretend to know what’s inside Herman Cain’s head, and I don’t pretend to know what’s been going on over all these years, but here’s what I suspect:  I think they have to destroy Herman Cain, and I think they’re getting desperate.  I don’t think Cain was supposed to get this far.  I think he was intended to appeal to enough of the Tea Party folks to divide that wing of the party, but something happened on the way to an election:  Suddenly, Cain had become the persistent front-runner.

After all that had been put into the task of securing the nomination for somebody else, Herman Cain had suddenly become a real obstacle, and worse, he began to believe he could win.   This is the reason Cain must be destroyed, but frankly, the longer this goes on, the more we fail to vet Romney.  Look.  We’ve paid scant attention to anything else for these last ten days.  Nobody benefits more from this entire episode than Mitt Romney, except perhaps for Obama, who knows he can beat dear Willard without difficulty.  Cain, in contrast, scares the crap out of Obama.

Let me reiterate:  We still have no evidence of note, and nothing of legal substance.   Herman Cain’s press conference was a sharp rebuke to the media.  That will not deter the media.  It was also a stern warning.  I think conservatives have had enough.  The senseless smears of Palin that were almost criminally contrived, and of other conservatives over the years all set the stage for this situation.  Conservatives will resist this nonsense because they have finally realized they must, because dirt is dirt, and if we’re going to have any integrity at all, we must admit that they can scowl and posture, but they still haven’t shown us anything that convicts Cain, or even substantially harms him.  What we’ve been presented is a load of innuendo.  As of this moment, there is nothing.  Nothing that merits tossing Herman Cain overboard.  Nothing at all to suggest a “pattern of abuses,” other than the abuse of Cain’s record and character and reputation.

You can come here and tell me you believe Bialek, but what evidence do you offer, apart from “feelings” and “instinct” and “intuition?”  Notice that all of these are emotion-bound concepts, and yet if you rely solely on your mind, and the available evidence, what must you conclude based only upon that which is demonstrable at this time?  What must you conclude?

There’s no doubt in my mind that if Herman Cain is guilty of any of this, we’ll know in short order, but there’s also little doubt in my mind that he’s probably innocent of the “serious charges.”  I am no longer going to listen to discussions of the “seriousness of the charges,” not because I believe that such conduct as has been alleged isn’t serious, but because I know that charges are just that, but precisely nothing more, and until they are substantiated by evidence and testimony of credible witnesses, they are only charges.  I have yet to see any of either quantity.  I’m still waiting for Allred to release the statements.  What are the odds that we will never see these alleged statements?

You can watch the press conference, in three parts below:

Rove Says Allred Adds Credibility – Question: To What Does Rove Add Credibility?

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

There He Goes Again

I don’t frankly know which is more laughable:  Karl Rove’s claim that Gloria Allred’s representation of Sharon Bialek makes her claims more credible.  My first question in response to this assertion is: Among whom?   I don’t know a single person, apart from leftists, or Karl Rove, who thinks Allred adds credibility.  Most people view Allred as a carnival barker, selling side-show attractions on the basis of hyped assertions that are most often subsequently undermined by facts.  More, I don’t know who thinks Karl Rove has any credibility on the question of this matter, with respect to Herman Cain.  As I’ve asked before in a different context, why should we believe Karl Rove now?  Wasn’t it Karl Rove less than a week ago telling us “Cain is finished,” while prognosticating on Fox News?  In the days that followed, Cain didn’t decline in the polls as Rove predicted, so now I must ask:  What credibility does Karl Rove add to Gloria Allred?

Answer: None.

Karl Rove has no public credibility once you understand that he’s a master manipulator.  We’ve seen all of this before, and frankly, it’s despicable.  Rove is still trying to kill off the Cain candidacy in much the same we he’s successfully killed off some others.  Appearing on FoxNews Tuesday, Rove said the following:

“Credibility matters here, and Gloria Allred — while she is a Democrat and a liberal Democrat and openly so — nonetheless, has been involved in a number of high-profile cases like Tiger Woods and others, where the charges have been borne out.

So this gives Ms. Bialek’s charges and accusations a little bit of credibility, and that’s what we’re talking about here — credibility.”

Sorry, but this is laughable.  If you’ve forgotten last year, when Allred was engaged in another case smearing Meg Whitman, with purely political motives, she was dismantled quite thoroughly first by Mark Levin, and later by Greta Van Susteren.   Allred has no credibility, and the fact that Rove now expects you to think she has credibility, while ignoring the plentiful reasons she does not, constitute more reasons why Rove has no credibility.

Sorry Karl, you’ve been debunked here too many times.  Come to think of it, so has Allred. Below are the instance last year when she was clobbered by both Levin and Van Susteren:

Levin Takes On Rove

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

Calling Rove Out

It’s time to get real.  George W. Bush isn’t president any longer.  Irrespective of what Bush and his political operatives would like, the Bush family does not control the Republican party, and particularly conservatives.  They may control the party apparatus, and its clear that Karl Rove is still involved in shaping the establishment narrative.  Thus far this election season, Rove has told us why various Republicans are unworthy, and why various Republicans “can’t win,” but what Rove leaves unstated is how he’s operating on behalf of certain patrons.  Appearing on Fox News with is handy little white-board, Rove has become a spectacle of establishment manipulation, but his problem is that nobody is falling for it any longer.  We know who Karl Rove is, and what he’s after, and we have a pretty fair idea which interests he represents.  I’m not interested in what Karl Rove thinks, or what he’s pushing this week. AWR Hawkins at takes on Rove’s claim that Cain is done, and Levin discussed the article.

Mark Levin seems to feel the same way about Rove’s position.  On his show, Monday, Levin went after Rove saying “Karl, they’re not laughing with you, they’re laughing at you.”  You can listen to the segment below:

At the very least, it’s clear to me that the division within the Republican party really comes down to the establishment that still caters to the Bush crowd, and the conservative wing of the party, and this divide is rearing its head again in the current attacks on Herman Cain.  I think conservatives may be so tired of the establishment script that they may simply ignore Rove’s pronouncement of the death of Cain’s candidacy.  After all, who the hell is Karl Rove?  I believe the conservative wing of the party is so disgusted with this well-timed attack on Cain that they may suspect, as I do, that this story about Cain has been generated not by the left, but as a hit-job in the Republican party.  Time will tell, but it’s hard to ignore this repeated trend.

Let’s Think About This

Thursday, August 25th, 2011

Sizing Up Karl Rove

One could easily imagine that the reason for Rove and others to create a mis-impression among Palin supporters that September 3rd would be the day for an announcement of a presidential campaign, but there must be more to this than meets the eye.  Why? As I have surmised, it’s likely the attempt to force Palin in early, leaving her to otherwise risk disappointing her supporters.  This would imply that he had some other potential candidate he wants to bring in afterward, or he wants to damage her and thereby dissuade her from entering at all.  Failing that, he must intend to damage her in support of a candidate already in the field.  Last night, as I reported, Rove went on FNC with Greta to continue his attack on Palin, feigning self-defense, and establishing a meme that she’s “thin-skinned.”  That’s not nearly true for any number of reasons, but as you know, Rove works at managing perceptions. Remember his operation against Christine O’Donnell? Don’t assume anything less will be in the offing for Sarah Palin.

Why, having been caught trying to force her hand, or otherwise cause her damage, would Rove then go on to continue this attack on Sarah Palin?  Rove knows that most polls made public are tools for guys like him to push the public, to establish narratives, or to support them once seeded.  He has access to other polls and I believe that when you consider Dick Morris’ brief piling-on, though he likely represents different people, they share an interest in this scenario, and it therefore must be this:  The remainder of the Republican field, even with Perry now in, is soft in their support for the candidates they may now seem to prefer.  The last thing any of them want to see is a Palin candidacy.

Consider it this way:  The support for candidates like Bachmann and Perry, and now, clearly even Romney, is much wider than it is deep.  This is because many people have leaped into support of those campaigns not because these represent their favorite candidate, but because they’ll serve as a sort of surrogate unless and until their real choice enters.  I know people like this, and so do you.  Right now, they’re out there supporting their “back-up plan” for 2012, waiting, or at least hoping for somebody else.  Part of the evidence of this is that money is not flowing to campaigns as readily as they might otherwise expect.  The other evidence lies in the softness in the polls that could permit Perry to announce only two weeks ago and virtually without effort, eclipse Mitt Romney.  What this should tell you is that people are looking for better choices, and some number of those who have gone from Romney to Perry may well jump from Perry’s ship once the dirt accumulates and another candidate they would prefer becomes available.

If Rove and others could substantially damage Palin, she might not get in, or if she did, be forced to fight too great an uphill battle from which to recover.  Even if Rove has no new candidates in mind,  let’s imagine that he supports one or more of those already in.  Ditto Morris.  Delivering a damaging theme to the media might well prevent her from entering, or having entered, from getting traction.  In other words, everything Rove is doing is aimed at aborting a Palin Campaign, or causing it to be delivered prematurely and stillborn.  If he could accomplish this, it would tend to settle the field.  We’re being told that Perry and Rove don’t mix, but who’s more apt to benefit, among the current crop, if Rove is able to freeze the field?  Well, that would be the three front-runners, would it not?  The only other plausible beneficiary would be an unknown late entrant, but Morris’ statement was too ad hoc, seemingly piling on to ride a wave Rove was trying to build.  Morris also quickly retreated to his previous stance that Palin will not run.  Settling the field would cause the money to start flowing.

This should tell us all something about which we should be thoroughly cautious: Over the remainder of the period between now and the legal cut-off to entry in some states, around the middle of October, there will be endless attempts to try to goad Governor Palin into rash actions in support of the theme Rove first advanced last night.  I even heard Mark Davis continue that theme, using the “thin-skinned” smear while sitting in for Rush Limbaugh on Thursday.  That isn’t accidental.  Look for more of the same as he sits in for Open Line Friday.  Beware of some of those you had once thought to be friends.  They will come out of the woodwork now, trying to join in the theme, on television, radio, and in blogs.

In most cases, the best thing for Sarah Palin and her PAC to do is just steer clear.  There’s no reason to engage it further, having made their position known, and those of us who are vigilant in the blogs will combat it here on the Internet.  It’s simple for us: We need only to oppose lies by revealing the truth.

If Governor Palin intends to run, it’s clear that she’s said we’d know probably by the end of September.  That’s good enough for me, and probably for you too, and nothing is served by further engaging these leeches directly.  Like Sarah Palin has done, we need only to maintain discipline.  So long as we do that, Rove and his cronies will fail.  It’s time to actively kill off the rumor mill to the extent we are able.  It’s time for heightened awareness and vigilance.  It’s time for us to stop with our own speculation and trust Governor Palin’s sense of timing.  Let’s get on with it.  We’ve come too long to fall prey to the purveyors of garbage now.

Karl Rove is a Villain – Those He Serves Are Worse

Thursday, August 25th, 2011

Still Rove

Tonight, the master manipulator, and Sith Lord, Karl Rove went on FNC’s “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren in an attempt to continue his theme of disinformation, asserting Sarah Palin is thin-skinned, and that he had nothing to do with an attempt to sabotage Sarah Palin or her supporters:


Hey Karl, newsflash, pal: I accused you. Me. Right here on this blog. Don’t go spinning this off on Sarah Palin. Don’t blame others. Blame me. I called you out. I called you a manipulator. ME. I looked at SarahPac’s statement, posted elsewhere on this blog, but I cannot find your name in that statement, anywhere.

No sir, what you’ve done is to make a confession, but let’s demonstrate that, shall we?

First, let’s read the SarahPac statement:

Setting The Record Straight: Wrong & Misleading
Posted on August 23, 2011

Three years ago DC pundits predicted with glee the demise of Sarah Palin’s political career. This past weekend their tune changed, citing false information that she has made a decision and set a date regarding a future campaign. Any professional pundit claiming to have “inside information” regarding Governor Palin’s personal decision is not only wrong but their comments are specifically intended to mislead the American public. These are the same tired establishment political games that fuel the 24 hour news cycle and that all Americans will hopefully reject in 2012, and this is more of the “politics-as-usual” that Sarah Palin has fought against throughout her career.

PS – Kudos to CNN for setting the record straight and including Governor Palin’s own words.

Now Karl, it’s not possible that you’ve read this and then told Greta that Sarah Palin was the one making  it about you.  I made it about you, Karl.  Me. To my knowledge, nobody published on this developing story before me.  Nobody else that I had heard anywhere made these accusations against you until some time later.  What’s worse Karl is that I know that you know it.  Others followed, but I went with the story when I began to suspect something watching the footage and re-reading your statements, but in nowhere that I’ve seen (and I’ve looked) is there a single instance of Sarah Palin mentioning your name with respect to this incident.  Nice try, Karl.  I said it here in this blog.  Mark Levin said it to a much larger radio audience later on Monday on his radio show.  You are now reacting in an attempt to rescue yourself from the cesspool of your own making.  Are you suggesting you came upon SarahPac’s statement out of the blue, read it, and simply assumed yourself to be its object?  No Karl, that’s not credible. If somebody else informed you that you might be its object, how did they form that conclusion?  Surely not from SarahPac’s statement?

No, you must have heard the accusation of sabotage from some other source.  How else would you have concluded SarahPac’s statement was aimed at you?  Which source, Karl?  Much as I might like to think it was from my little blog, it was more likely Levin’s pronouncement on this own show, with a large audience that might even include you.  If so, your statements to Greta were bold-faced lies.  If you did actually just happen upon the statement, and having read it cold, concluded it must be pointing at you, I would ask only: Why?  There’s only one reason that comes to mind:  You knew it was aimed at you because this was indeed your intent.  As I said, you’re either confessing to your motives, or your admitting you lied to Greta.  Take your pick. Neither alternative sits well with me.  Don’t be concerned as that means damnably little to you.

You implied by your original statement on FNC that Palin had to get in by Labor Day, or not at all.  You said that. You may attempt to weasel the words, but we have the video.  Here it is again:

“This is her last chance,” Rove said.  “She either gets in or gets out [after the Iowa visit].  I think she gets in.”


Having seen this quote, or the original footage, most people would naturally conclude that the simplest interpretation of what you said is your honest opinion.  The problem is, Karl, you don’t speak in honest opinions publicly, and you’re trying now to back out from under this load before it lands on your head, but it’s too late, this time.

Let’s cut the crap, Karl: For whom are you shilling, this time?  You always have clients, or at least prospective clients, so who is it this time?  You see, I’m finished dealing with you.  I’m going to discover the identity of  the client(s,) and I don’t care the identity, because I am going to expose all of this if I can, to the embarrassment of whomsoever may be involved.  I will devote a good deal of text to that relationship, and it doesn’t matter to me who your client(s) may be.  Said person(or persons) will be exposed along with you.

You might wonder how you could have raised my ire this way, because to you, I’m just another piece on the field, to be played and manipulated.  I’ve got news for you Karl: It’s not going to work, this time.

For my audience, let me explain to you what Mr. Rove really is.  He’s the kind of creature politicians use for their worst, most devious dirty work.  Mr. Rove has analogs all over DC, and around the country.  In fact, it’s fair to say there’s a Rove equivalent in every corner of the globe.  You may remember my previous discussion of the mindset of these people, but if not, let me explain it again:

Mr. Rove wins when he can push a narrative to the advantage of his client(s.)  Mr. Rove doesn’t give a rip about you, any of you, except to push you in a direction that serves his clients’ interests.  The easiest way to negate the influence of Karl Rove is to ignore him, completely.  Cover your ears and say “blah-blah-blah” until he’s done speaking.  Karl Rove is a man who makes his living getting inside your head.  Anybody who associates with him or retains his services intends to wage Machiavellian warfare against your minds.  Anybody.  Read that again.  I said “anybody.”

You might wonder how my judgment of Mr. Rove and all who consort with him could be so scathing.  After all, he’s just a political hack doing the bidding of some master, right?   Well, yes, but also no.  As I’ve said before, Rove is the sort who manages narratives in the service of his clientele.  Part of the problem with the class of people that Mr. Rove is, and the sort he represents, is that they are of the mindset to manipulate people en masse without any concern for the lives of the people they’re manipulating.

For example, this recent narrative put in play by Rove, and then pushed by Morris, would have led tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions of people to believe that Sarah Palin intended to announce over the Labor Day weekend at the Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa.  Let me ask you: Had some many tens of thousands of people arrived in Indianola, Iowa, expecting to hear a campaign launched, what would be the cost if it were not then launched?  Would it destroy that potential candidacy?  Perhaps, but here’s what raises my blood pressure the most, and it has nothing to do with the politician(s) involved:  What would have happened to those individual people?

What would it do to them?  Mr. Rove and his clients regard all those people as pawns in their game.  The emotional investments, the tireless efforts, the hopes, the dreams, and the aspirations of all those who in such a scenario would arrive expecting an announcement of a campaign would surely be crushed.  I think of the young women like my own daughter, who adore Mrs. Palin, who would begin their transformation into political cynics at much too young an age.  I think of all the independents who, in this scenario, would have been willing to give politics one last try in the name of all they love about their lives and their country, and how this would permanently disaffect them.  To Mr. Rove, and those he serves, all of these would be mere pawns.  Not individual people.  Not thinking human beings with lives and loves.  Just another mass of people to be “played.”

Let me tell you what else this means, in the concrete and honest facts of the matter:  Anybody who consorts with Mr. Rove is willing to use and dispose of you like stage props.  I mean that.  Have you considered how many additional people might flood the roadways leading to Indianola, Iowa, if it had been believed widely that Sarah Palin intended to announce her candidacy for President there?  Thousands more?  Tens of thousands more?  How many more gallons of gasoline?  How many hours of labor spent?  How many dollars would have been spent in futility, by people some of whom cannot afford to let their money go easily?  Sadly, what might have happened on the roadways so packed with people, some of them hurrying from great distances to be there?  How many would perhaps not make it home again, all in pursuit of something that might well not occur, because Karl Rove created that expectation?  Would Karl Rove or his master(s) be blamed?  No.  If anyone would be blamed, who would it likely be?  Yet who agitated in the direction of such a thing?  Who tried to create that impression? Karl Rove, Dick Morris, and any number of their brethren, along with their clients were begging for it.  Those clients would be safely well away, blameless.

Now, it’s fair to say that with any large event, even a football game or rock concert, there will always sadly be some number who don’t make it to the event, or having made the event, never make it home.  That’s reality.  That’s our world, and nobody can be held responsible, right?  Sure.  That’s easy to say if it wasn’t somebody you knew, but instead some faceless person in the crowd about whom Rove and his master(s) couldn’t possibly care less.

It is this willingness to view people as segments and blocs and masses and numbers that brands Rove and his colleagues as immoral.  When he was in the midst of a divorce, he sent out Dana Perino as his spokesperson to handle the press.  You may not remember it, but I do, and it was done very much in a manner to maintain the privacy of Rove and his family.  I have no issue with that, yet I also know that Mr. Rove demonstrates by that instance that he holds his own life in one respect, but yours in another entirely.

You see, this is the vulgar mindset of crass indifference to your lives that dominates Mr. Rove’s thinking.  He doesn’t care about you or even the country.  He cares about getting paid and wielding power.  He cares about exercising influence on masses of people by shaping narratives for the sake of his clients.  You?  The individual?  You’re just another brick in his wall.  He’s building his own tower of Babel.  He and those like him care not whether it is built on your corpse, or the rotting hulk of a nation.  Neither do those who retain his services.

Why Would I Believe Karl Rove Now?

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

Who? Me?

You know what I think of Karl Rove, and it isn’t pleasant.  He doesn’t say anything without some ulterior motive, and he seldom throws air-time away on loose, unfocused talk.  He even makes up his own small white-boards for television interviews so he can make his points visually.  No, a guy like this never says or does anything without a purpose in mind.  Over the last several days, since he made his statements regarding Sarah Palin’s potential official entry into the GOP field, something hasn’t felt right about it.  Two things I know about Rove are that he hates to be seen as having been wrong, and what he really hates is to lose.  His value to the establishment as a political strategist isn’t based on the accuracy of his political prognostications in public, but instead on his ability to manipulate results by the disinformation he spreads in the media.   Often times, the analysis he offers on TV are aimed at some purpose other than that which would seem apparent.  Due to this, I’ve begun to wonder what his mention of Sarah Palin is really intended to accomplish. It’s the reason I included a question mark in my coverage of Natalie Nichols’ article from yesterday.  I simply don’t trust the guy.  There’s always an angle to what he’s doing, and he’s effective.  Now, with Dick Morris tweeting that he thinks she’ll announce September 3rd, I can’t help but smell a rat.

I went back to the original article in which I read the account, and I was even able to scare up a portion of the video, and so I took a look at what Rove said, and considered what it might be intended to accomplish, apart from what he seemed to be saying.  In my view, here is the critical nugget:

“This is her last chance,” Rove said.  “She either gets in or gets out [after the Iowa visit].  I think she gets in.”

Who says it’s her last chance?  Why would any of us assume that Governor Palin would choose this moment to begin complying with the narrative of the media’s pet political analysts?  It’s not as though any of us actually believe either that Karl Rove wants Sarah Palin to succeed, or that he’s some sort of detached, objective source of political wisdom.  What Rove’s statement proposes is a ridiculous premise:  It’s then, or never.  Why would Rove wish to deliver such a message?  He certainly isn’t saying it to help Sarah Palin.  I think he wants to paint the picture of a candidate who must get in over Labor Day weekend, or just as well stay home.  Could this be because Rove is trying to push her to a premature declaration, or to push us into a false belief based on his dubious assertions?

Why would Rove do that? Rove’s interests lie with some other agenda, but not in advancing a Palin candidacy. What if he could score a substantial knock on her via an expectation game he’s now helped foment among us, knowing that she’s better served to wait a while longer?

Would I enjoy it if she did announce on the 3rd?  Sure, since I plan on being there, but then again, I am not so worried about the particular date of her announcement that the lack of one on that day would throw me into a tail-spin of despair or send me scurrying off to some other campaign.  I’m a grown-up, and I’ve waited longer for things of much less importance.  Truth is, if that’s not the best day for Sarah Palin to announce, in her own judgment, and by her own criteria, I don’t want her to announce just to suit me.  I want her to announce on the day she believes will make for the best effect in pursuit of victory.  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I am prepared to wait until hell freezes over, or she herself tells us otherwise, and if she ultimately decides not to run, I’ll be fine with that too, because I support Sarah Palin, candidate for President or no.

Right now, there’s a lot of “huff and puff” over Rick Perry, and as I mentioned before, this Savior-of-the-Day mentality isn’t something we Palin supporters have ever accepted, so why go with the talking heads’ claims of their prescribed dates and times now?  No, I’m not falling for it.  If she announces that day, or any other day, I will be equally thrilled at the prospect.  There isn’t a time limit on my support, and in truth, my support of Governor Palin isn’t limited to Presidential politics, so I’m not inclined to get too attached to what Karl Rove asserts, one way or the other.  I’m done buying the premises such people try to lay out for us, knowing that all too frequently, it’s intended to push us in a direction we would not otherwise knowingly or willingly go.

I’ve said it before, and at some length a month ago today, and I’ll say it this one last time:  Leave the strategy to Governor Palin. Why am I supposed to feel hurried anyway?  I know who I support, and all the other people already in this race will still be there a month from now even if Governor Palin should decide not to run.  While I don’t view that as likely, so what if she did?  Two things would remain true even in that case:  I would still support her as a tremendous advocate for our values, and I would still be able to decide whether to support (or not support) one of the other numerous candidates.   What I won’t do is talk myself into arbitrary, dubious, artificial deadlines for which there is no actual basis in fact, never mind letting Karl Rove talk me into one.  That’s just silly.  The real deadlines are a good bit later, and for me, my deadline is that day on which Texans go to vote in the primaries, next March.  That’s the only deadline I’m worried about, and Karl Rove’s claim of some nonsensical cut-off date is just more typical DC-insider political garbage, and media manipulation.   No, I am prepared to wait.  Sarah Palin has said it herself:  There will be no mistaking her decision on the day she announces it.  I expect Iowa on September 3rd to be one thoroughly enriching event, and I am going there to enjoy the fellowship of others like me, and to listen to whatever Governor Palin has to say.  I’m not going there expecting to hear an official campaign launch.  I’m going there to support her and the Tea Party folks who are hosting the event.  She said the time-frame of the end of September should cover the range of dates during which we could expect some sort of announcement.  I believe her, and it’s as simple as that. There’s no sense in falling prey to some well-laid Karl Rove narrative.