Bush Was Right When It Mattered Most

[Eleas]

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Any Swedes want to explain?

Moderata Samlingspartiet, which I assume is what's referred to, is a right-of-center, liberal conservatist party. It's today the second largest political party in Sweden. Their rhetoric rests heavily on championing individual economic freedom versus the depredations of collectivism, a dislike of social security and welfare cases, and a - to my mind rampantly uncritical - praise for the free market. The moderates have long been disaffected by the economic state of Sweden as a whole and are, in other words, eager for role models. The US is an obvious one, not coincidentally because its pop culture saturates our media.

In short: the moderates chose Rove simply because he was a semi-visible proponent of their pet theories.

[General Zod]

Moderata Samlingspartiet, which I assume is what's referred to, is a right-of-center, liberal conservatist party. It's today the second largest political party in Sweden. Their rhetoric rests heavily on championing individual economic freedom versus the depredations of collectivism, a dislike of social security and welfare cases, and a - to my mind rampantly uncritical - praise for the free market. The moderates have long been disaffected by the economic state of Sweden as a whole and are, in other words, eager for role models. The US is an obvious one, not coincidentally because its pop culture saturates our media.

In short: the moderates chose Rove simply because he was a semi-visible proponent of their pet theories.

So basically Sweden's version of our Lolbertarians?

[Eleas]

Moderata Samlingspartiet, which I assume is what's referred to, is a right-of-center, liberal conservatist party. It's today the second largest political party in Sweden. Their rhetoric rests heavily on championing individual economic freedom versus the depredations of collectivism, a dislike of social security and welfare cases, and a - to my mind rampantly uncritical - praise for the free market. The moderates have long been disaffected by the economic state of Sweden as a whole and are, in other words, eager for role models. The US is an obvious one, not coincidentally because its pop culture saturates our media.

In short: the moderates chose Rove simply because he was a semi-visible proponent of their pet theories.

So basically Sweden's version of our Lolbertarians?

Try the Republicans. Difference is, they're reluctantly grounded in the Swedish political climate, which means they need to pretend to give a fuck about medicare, poverty and education.

[Samuel]

Then there is another mentality used by Republicans to defend Bush. Bush is an alright president because he did not do enough to screw the US beyond recovery.

I really have to wonder, is it even possible for the US to have a sizable and useful opposition party against the Democrats? An opposition party that does not oppose the democrats based on anti-intellectualism?

It is funny to see the US, who viewed itself as a democratic nation which everyone should follow can't even have a sensible opposition party.

Yes. They would have to be to the left of the democrats center however. Or be Shep style warmongers.

[Twoyboy]

And Mr. Bush, a man of core decency and integrity, was right not to reply in kind when Democratic leaders called him a liar and a loser. The price of trying to change the tone in Washington was to be often pummeled by lesser men.

This is just pure unvarnished lies. Bush accused everyone who disagreed with him of being on the side of the terrorists.

That is totally untrue... he effectively accused some of them of being on the side of Satan...

Even here we have apologists for Bush. I saw in today's Australian some guy named Devine saying history will vindicate Bush. ... But I see that if you sprout lies enough times it becomes truth, at least for those too goddamn stupid to pay attention.

I fear that, despite the unanimous opinion and raft of information here, history will vindicate Bush. Somewhere along the line, the mess he's made will be cleaned up by someone greater than Bush himself and when the world actually is a better place a lot of credit will be filtered to him by Republican arse kissers.

[Pablo Sanchez]

er.. you might have missed that last eight years, two presidential elections, four congressional elections.

Four congressional elections? They completely lost two of those, WTF are you talking about?

Again, to repeat myself since sometimes people have a hard time reading, Karl Rove and G.W. Bush were handed the biggest political PR giveaway since Kennedy got shot in the head. Bush instantly shot from 52% approval to an unprecedented 90% approval rating. By 2004 he was just eking out a victory over Kerry (the most uncompelling candidate who could be found), and by 2006 the dream of a permanent GOP majority was completely over, in spite of a Rove-tactics full court press.

It's equally important to note that they managed this debacle with no effective opposition, neither from the mainstream media nor from the Democratic Party. They did it all through their own incompetence. And of course the last Presidential election, in which Obama's grassroots positivism curbstomped a Rove-style campaign, is demonstrative. The Rove trajectory is an illustration and definition of Lincoln's dictum; "You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

How many of the people can you fool all of the time? 25%, give or take.
How long can you fool all of the people? About five years.

I'm not just going by the five years they were successful. I'm taking their advantages, which they squandered in epic fashion, into account as well.

Sure, they are out, but after how long?

Hard to say, but speculatively? It could be a long damn time. Firstly, if Obama is a good president, and early signs indicate that he will be, and he goes two terms, then history will have a 24-year consecutive argument for Democratic Party governance (1992-2016). Secondly, America is becoming more demographically diverse, and the Democrats are decisively winning the support of these expanding minorities. Thirdly, the generation now coming of age has no respect for the GOP--polls show a 15 point advantage for Democrats in people under 30. Fourthly, if the Obama administration is successful in taking on the recession and enacting a sane health care system, the Republican Party as we know it will have to change or die.

Making sure that every American has health insurance, and the accompanying social and economic savings that public policy experts expect that to bring, is going to be a Democratic initiative and the people will know it as such. There are 46-odd million uninsured Americans, and let's say that the health care system comes online as planned, and they all get insurance, and they owe it to Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Electorally, that's kind of a big deal.

These are all speculations based on snapshots, but try taking the opposite track and looking for advantages that the Republican Party can exploit to get back into power... that picture doesn't look so good.

[Mr Bean]

Four congressional elections? They completely lost two of those, WTF are you talking about?

Pablo I think he's referring to the 96, 98, 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections as solid Republican wins for the most part.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Pablo I think he's referring to the 96, 98, 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections as solid Republican wins for the most part.

Okay, there are two things wrong with this.

Thing one, still only two of those were "solid wins". The Republicans lost the Presidential race in 1996, lost 8 Representatives, and gained 2 Senators. In '98 the Senate was a wash, and they lost 5 more representatives. In 2000, through chicanery and Rove tactics, they "won" the presidential election while losing 2 Representatives and 4 Senators. In 2002 and 2004 they did much better with Rovian fear-mongering, gaining altogether 6 Senators and 11 Representatives, as well as once again narrowly winning the presidency. Then you have 2006 and 2008, which were epic ass-beatings--taken together, they lost 52 house seats and 14 senate seats in the successive elections.

Thing two, Rove didn't direct the 1996, 1998, or 2000 GOP campaigns (in 2000 he was running Bush's campaign but not masterminding the national effort), so it is pretty much ridiculous to try to include those. He played a leading role only in the 2002, 2004, and 2006 campaigns, while in 2008 his personal influence was limited but the GOP was firmly committed to his tactics.

[montypython]

Rove's methods in a way remind me of the old saying, 'you are your own worst enemy'.