Karl Rove to "name names"

[Ender]

This might be OT
link

(CNN) – Enemies of President Bush take heed: Karl Rove is set to name names.

The man widely credited with Bush's two presidential victories says his new book will include an accounting of those in Washington who never accepted the president as a legitimate commander-in-chief.

"I've got behind-the-scenes episodes that are going to show how unreceiving they were of this man as president of the United States," Rove told Cox News in an interview published Sunday. "I'm going to name names and show examples."

Rove signed a deal with publishing giant Simon & Schuster last year, reported be worth over $1.5 million.

In the wide-ranging interview, Rove also suggested the criticisms the president and his aides took were partly because they were not part of the Washington establishment.

"You'll notice there was outrage when it was thought that I was the person behind outing Valerie Plame. And then when it came out that it was the sainted [Deputy Secretary of State] Richard Armitage, there was no interest," Rove said. "I don't remember seeing anybody camped out on his doorstep like they were camped out on mine. [It's]because he was part of the acceptable culture of Washington, and I was not. I was one of those Texans who came up. He was one of those perpetual I'll-scratch-your-back-if-you'll-scratch-mine Washington leakers. "

I won't buy it because it means giving the guy money, but I'll certainly check it out from the library.

[Darth Wong]

McCarthy was big on naming names too. Quick! Let's expose those who were disloyal to Dear Leader!

Why can't Rove suffer a heart attack and die already?

[DaveJB]

Be interesting to see these names. Obviously Rove thinks he's going to be naming and shaming these horrible men and women who wouldn't fully co-operate with poor old George, but it might well be an indication of who actually has brains in DC.

Also interesting that he feels these people deserve to be outed... but only to those who are willing to pay for the privilege. I suppose it just goes to show what a man of principle he is.

[CarsonPalmer]

I hope he realizes how disliked he is. Unless he wants to make those people even more popular, he'd be best off keeping his mouth shut.

[Darksider]

McCarthy was big on naming names too. Quick! Let's expose those who were disloyal to Dear Leader!

Why can't Rove suffer a heart attack and die already?

Wouldn't that require him to actually have one?

i'm convinced that the only thing that will ever drop rove is a stake through the heart, or maybe some holy water....


Seriously though. Is there anything the conservotards do nowadays that doesn't seem cartoonishly evil?

[Solauren]

So, he's essentially being paid to behave like a 2 year old. You know, "Telling!"

And published works sink to a new low.

[Darth Onasi]

In the wide-ranging interview, Rove also suggested the criticisms the president and his aides took were partly because they were not part of the Washington establishment.

Yes, I'm sure it's all because Bush wasn't one of the "good old boys" (my ass he wasn't) and not because he's a, you know, terrible leader.

[DaveJB]

A member of the Bush family isn't part of the Washington establishment? Sure thing. And the Clintons are just an obscure family from New York, I hear.

[Kodiak]

"I've got behind-the-scenes episodes that are going to show how unreceiving they were of this man as president of the United States," Rove told Cox News in an interview published Sunday. "I'm going to name names and show examples."

Was this intentional, or copied that way?

I'm not to worried about "name-naming" that will go on. Right now the Bush administration is best forgotten.

[General Zod]

"I've got behind-the-scenes episodes that are going to show how unreceiving they were of this man as president of the United States," Rove told Cox News in an interview published Sunday. "I'm going to name names and show examples."

Was this intentional, or copied that way?

As much as the thought of Fox News getting its named butchered by CNN amuses me, no, that is not a typo. There's an agency called COX Washington who I think broke this article, afaik.

[Kanastrous]

So Rove plans to list heroes and patriots. Bully for him.

[Medic]

I hope he realizes how disliked he is. Unless he wants to make those people even more popular, he'd be best off keeping his mouth shut.

Perhaps from a moderate and left-of-center point-of-view. (by American standards)

However, consider what this is for the Right: writing the Bush legacy, it's ups, it's downs, and it's scapegoats.
'Course, I call that the good, the bad, and the ugly. History being written by the winners and all, we'll eventually see whose accounting of the situation holds salt 2 to 5 decades from now.

Slightly OT, I don't remember who it was, but one of either Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh's temp-hosts went on the air claiming Dick Cheney to be the best VP ever. (I've listened to all 3 shows off and on for a few months)

So make no mistake: though Bush's years in office are just-now ending the blame-game and rhetoric which will account for America and it's leadership from 2000-2008 are really only JUST hitting their stride. As Orwell said, "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." I guess my point is, don't kid yourself about why Rove's writing this; there's a market for it, eager to gobble it up and stick to it as gospel.

[Darth Wong]

When it comes to the historical revisionism game, he who has the most persistence wins. If they spout lies and people correct them, they will just do it again, and again, and again. Eventually, the people stop bothering to correct their lies, and the lies become the accepted history.

Remember: they spent thirty years spin-doctoring the Vietnam War, with the result that most people today believe their bullshit about soldiers coming home and being assaulted at the airport by hippie demonstrators, or the war being lost because the media lied about how badly it was going.

What Karl Rove begins today, others will continue after he is dead. That's the sad thing.

[The Romulan Republic]

When it comes to the historical revisionism game, he who has the most persistence wins. If they spout lies and people correct them, they will just do it again, and again, and again. Eventually, the people stop bothering to correct their lies, and the lies become the accepted history.

Remember: they spent thirty years spin-doctoring the Vietnam War, with the result that most people today believe their bullshit about soldiers coming home and being assaulted at the airport by hippie demonstrators, or the war being lost because the media lied about how badly it was going.

What Karl Rove begins today, others will continue after he is dead. That's the sad thing.

Well my experience has been that most people believe that the Vietnam war was a mistake, and could not have been won. But maybe I just know a lot of liberals.

[Bilbo]

McCarthy was big on naming names too. Quick! Let's expose those who were disloyal to Dear Leader!

Why can't Rove suffer a heart attack and die already?

The choice of words commander-in-chief implies that these are military people. As far as I know a member of the military is not allowed to decide who is or isnt their legitimate commander.

Now if this was just lack of respoect its a rather minor deal and merely shows lack of professionalism. If on the other hand active disloyalty, failure to obey legal orders, or circumventing orders. Then that is different.

But really what is the point. Rove has to know he is hated. It was his job to be hated. He was a political operator. While he isnt going to hold the same position I fully expect Rahm Emmanuel to be just as hated in a few years. Rahm's job is to be bad cop so that Obama can continue to play good cop. It's his job and one by product is being hated for it.

[Gigaliel]

The choice of words commander-in-chief implies that these are military people. As far as I know a member of the military is not allowed to decide who is or isnt their legitimate commander.

I don't think that's the case. Commander-in-chief has been increasingly used even in the context of civilians, especially among the right wing. Consider what Fox pundits called Bush every three seconds.

Secondly, someone should really send these people muffins or something after we know who they are.

[Crown]

McCarthy was big on naming names too. Quick! Let's expose those who were disloyal to Dear Leader!

Why can't Rove suffer a heart attack and die already?

Because that wouldn't at all be cathartic to the rest of us who want him to pay for his many sins (get it? cathartic? ).

[Patrick Degan]

So basically, Simon and Schuster are financing Rove's golden parachute.

[Havok]

Maybe it is an incorrect assessment, but at this point, wouldn't you want to be on this list? I mean, the more separation you can get from Bush and his administration, the better? Wouldn't this almost be like a badge of honor?

[Patrick Degan]

Maybe it is an incorrect assessment, but at this point, wouldn't you want to be on this list? I mean, the more separation you can get from Bush and his administration, the better? Wouldn't this almost be like a badge of honor?

And that's the other thing about this which is so amusing: despite what Rove likes to think, being disloyal to Bush is more like being loyal to the country. So making Karl's list is actually a badge of honour.

[Pelranius]

His editorial in TIME magazine about how the Republicans should fight in 2010 was barrel of laughs. Basically he thought that the culture wars were still a relevant theme to build the campaigns around (he cites the California gay marriage ban without acknowledging any of the qualifiers around that incident).

[Tanasinn]

I would imagine disloyalty to the chimp maladministration would be seen by most Americans these days as a feather in their cap, not a scarlet letter.

[Darth Wong]

His editorial in TIME magazine about how the Republicans should fight in 2010 was barrel of laughs. Basically he thought that the culture wars were still a relevant theme to build the campaigns around (he cites the California gay marriage ban without acknowledging any of the qualifiers around that incident).

Ambassador Bolton had a very similar attitude. They believe that "solidifying the base" is the most important thing to do, and that's how they've succeeded in the past.

To be fair, that's not an entirely unreasonable viewpoint, in the sense that the hard-line Republican flag-waving gun-toting Bible-thumper base is one of the most dedicated and fanatical political groups out there. They represent a valuable political asset, and losing them would be considered catastrophic.

The problem is that they seem almost apathetic about how anyone views them outside of this base. Their arrogance is breathtaking, and the only reason they got as many votes as they did was that despite claims to the contrary, the media is largely right-wing. There's no viable left-wing media in America, notwithstanding The Daily Show's self-conscious attempt to refute their liberal labeling by pretending MSNBC qualifies.

[Mayabird]

"I've got behind-the-scenes episodes that are going to show how unreceiving they were of this man as president of the United States," Rove told Cox News in an interview published Sunday. "I'm going to name names and show examples."

Was this intentional, or copied that way?

As much as the thought of Fox News getting its named butchered by CNN amuses me, no, that is not a typo. There's an agency called COX Washington who I think broke this article, afaik.

Cox Washington is a part of Cox Enterprises, which owns a large number of newspapers and other media outlets in the southeast U.S. CNN obviously isn't a part of it, but since it's based in Atlanta where a lot of Cox assets are, they probably were the next ones to get the story.

[Medic]

Getting back to the heart of Rove's intent though, the contrast is hilarious. We all know just how receptive the Right-Wing is to the Obama Presidency so far (you don't have to listen long to Fox News or Conservative radio to hear someone declare by fiat they don't consider him a legitimate POTUS because of any number of reasons, usually starting with 'he's not a US citizen!' and deviating MORE from reality, from there) and it's obvious that's why he talks about the poor reception about the idea of a Bush presidency. It will somehow legitimize the coming political flak-storm and rank obstructionism the Obama presidency will have to endure.

On to the comparison though: this is the W who lost the popular vote, won the electoral only on the strength of a hotly-contested Florida with all sorts of legal grey-areas (hanging chads and whatnot); a state in which Bush's Florida campaign co-chair was Florida's Secretary-of-State (Katherine Harris) and a state-court mandated recount was killed by a US Supreme Court with 4 Reagan-era justices all to the backdrop of Ralph Nader playing foil to Gore?

Versus an Obama who raised millions of dollars from ordinary Americans, grew a huge grass-roots campaign and won a (modern-day) electoral landslide?
'Course, to play devil's advocate, those small donors are suspicious, the media 'selected' Obama, and Obama spent his way into the Presidency. Oh, and McCain's "liberal." Palin 2012!


At the end of the day though, with Indiana, North Carolina and Florida all counted electorally as BLUE states, I look askance at the idea that there was just nothing to be disappointed about with 8 years or predominately Republican rule and hold in complete contempt anyone that doesn't see Obama as himself legitimate or who are entirely unreceptive to it. It was not just a media phenomenon which put Obama into office, unless we're to believe the above 3, typically red states (to say nothing of Virginia, Ohio and Nevada to boot, all this year Blue too) completely banned Fox News. The fact is outside of the "Left Coast," New England and the Great-Lakes Blue States, FNC per-capita viewership has got to be through the roof, especially in comparison to those Blue-state strongholds. These people took in FNC's shit-peddling and still put Obama into office! The 2008 election was at LEAST an empirical backlash at W's tenure which underlines just why people were unreceptive to the Bush presidency and at MOST a seismic shift in America's electoral map and conscience. To borrow a phrase from my enlistment oath, anyone who doesn't "bear true faith and allegiance" to the 44th President can go fuck off in a minefield.