Join 3,517 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The Hand of Karl Rove
November 3, 2002 10:08 PM   Subscribe

The Hand of Karl Rove has moved before, and it may be moving as we speak. With the sudden revelation of an illegal working for Senate candidate David Pryor (who is leading Sen. Hutchinson), suspicion of the timing and credibility of these attacks is warranted, along with asking 'who benefits the most from this being revealed'. Don't be so sure other dirty tricks aren't being played. Don't worry about voting, this guy says it won't matter. Bleh.
posted by RobbieFal (11 comments total)

 
Any politician stupid enough to hire under-the-table deserves whatever comes from it, regardless of some spinners complaint regarding the 'timing' of the charge. Or do you think that the 'timing' is the worse offence?
posted by HTuttle at 11:42 PM on November 3, 2002


Nazi analogies are bodacious. I wish people had the sense to use them more often, and more liberally. For example, calling Karl Rove the "Josef Goebbels of America" is a nice touch, and so is the part about the West Wing being his "Eagle's Nest" but even better would be something along the lines of:

"Karl Rove made up stories about John McCain, just as Josef Mengele conducted medical experiments on children in Auschwitz."

Mmmmm... classy!
posted by Ljubljana at 11:47 PM on November 3, 2002


Ljubljana, I also enjoyed John Kaminski in the other linked site describing Geo. W. Bush as a 'rapine reptilian', and his brother Jeb as 'porcine'. Very convincing!
posted by Slithy_Tove at 1:03 AM on November 4, 2002


suspicion of the timing and credibility of these attacks is warranted, along with asking 'who benefits the most from this being revealed'.

Would this be like Mondale avoiding all debates with Coleman, except one the morning before the election? You know, hold a debate in the morning, so it can be edited for "highlights" and "soundbites" for the evening news, so that the people of Minnesota don't see the 74 year-old Mondale slowly stumble over his words in the debate?

Come on... this is nothing new, both parties pull this last minute crap every year...

For politicians, just like comedians, timing is the key to success.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:26 AM on November 4, 2002


Slithy, I like the description of Jeb as "porcine", but Shrub should be described, if necessary, as a "rapacious reptile". "Rapine reptile" makes no sense at all. That whole article is an ill-written mess.

The first is better written, but it's still amazingly biased and insulting from the beginning. I'm sure as hell not a fan of Karl Rove's, but this sort of stuff undermines legitimate discussions of his dodgy tactics.
posted by lambchops at 2:49 AM on November 4, 2002


I hit the back button at the Goebbels comparison. If I want to read heavy-handed partisan rhetoric, I can get plenty of that here.

The timing of the last-second revelation in the Arkansas campaign is comparable to the "November surprise" news about George W. Bush's DWI arrest in 2000. Rove has a well-deserved reputation as one of the slimiest characters in politics, but he differs from others only in his commitment to dirty tricks. With any luck, the guy will get his own WaterGate someday.
posted by rcade at 6:57 AM on November 4, 2002


Would this be like Mondale avoiding all debates with Coleman, except one the morning before the election? You know, hold a debate in the morning, so it can be edited for "highlights" and "soundbites" for the evening news, so that the people of Minnesota don't see the 74 year-old Mondale slowly stumble over his words in the debate?

I'm watching the debate right now on C-Span 2, and Mondale's not stumbling at all. He's constantly forcing the terms of the discussion on Coleman, which easily dispels the notion that he's a doddering old guy who isn't qualified for office.
posted by rcade at 8:39 AM on November 4, 2002


I'm actually surprised to see one of the races that I get to decide being discussed here. For me, I couldn't care less about the housekeeper. I just don't want Republicans to be in control of every branch of our federal government. I'm voting Pryor!
posted by St Seneca at 8:51 AM on November 4, 2002


I'm sorry, I don't think I'm getting enough pointless partisan mudthrowing here. May I have a little more?

It's a pity that Cockburn's let his sheet come to this sort of thing. You'd think one Matt Drudge is enough. Izzy Stone must be spinning in his grave.

Re: Mondale: I'd be delighted if he promised not to hold Coleman's youth and inexperience against him ....
posted by octobersurprise at 8:52 AM on November 4, 2002


Steve_at_Linwood:
You know, hold a debate in the morning, so it can be edited for "highlights" and "soundbites" for the evening news, so that the people of Minnesota don't see the 74 year-old Mondale slowly stumble over his words in the debate?

I certainly wasn't old enough to watch the '84 debates (at the time I was more concerned about battling the Skeletor-Cobra Commander-Decepticon axis of evil), but I've watched the entire tapes for a class on political comm and the media. Perhaps in 1984 Reagan's Reelection Campaing should've scheduled morning debates, "So that the people of [America] don't see the 73 year-old [Reagan] slowly stumble over his words in the debate?"

Yeah, I thought so.
posted by nathan_teske at 11:23 AM on November 4, 2002


nathan:
I watched the Coleman/Mondale debate, and I will admit that Mr. Mondale was quite "feisty", and I was shocked, as I think most people...

Though your comments on Reagan are off target. President Reagan did not duck any primetime debates, and that was the point I was making. Reagan was re-elected quite handily on being himself. Old as he was, he felt no need to hide himself or his views from the people.

Mr Mondale on the other hand, ducked out of all primetime debates, in favor of one morning debate. Most Minnesotans were at work and unable to watch or listen to the debate. The only view that they will have of the debate is whatever soundbites the news media thinks are the "juiciest" and they edit down. Any video editor, worth their pay, could edit and cut highlights that could make either Coleman or Mondale look stupid. And intentional, or not, some people will get a misrepresentation of both candidates because of the format of nightly news.

You can not tell me that watching a re-hash from some talking-head, or a summary in a newspaper article can possibly give you the same unbiased, straightforward view point as watching the actual debate. That is the issue here.

Yeah, I thought so.
nathan, what exact point are you attempting to make by this?

Need I remind you that Reagan beat Mondale 53m to 36m, 525 electoral votes to 13 electoral votes?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:29 AM on November 5, 2002


« Older When you are old and grey and full of sleep, An...  |  Carve-up of oil riches begins ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments