Full Version: Karl Rove
Ever since just prior to the 2000 election, I have heard nothing but scorn from the left concerning the tactics, techniques or tricks devised and employed by Karl Rove. Along with that comes, of course, the cute nicknames like KKKarl.
But what I'm curious about is why he is hated so by Liberals and Democrats. Fear? Jealousy? He's an obvious target for scorn? Or maybe he's really a despicable character. One AD member called him 'slimy' just this morning.
My questions for debate:
Is Karl Rove a bonafide political genius?
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
Please back up any claims with facts/links. Let's not turn this thread into a partisan flamefest.
But what I'm curious about is why he is hated so by Liberals and Democrats. Fear? Jealousy? He's an obvious target for scorn? Or maybe he's really a despicable character. One AD member called him 'slimy' just this morning.
My questions for debate:
Is Karl Rove a bonafide political genius?
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
Please back up any claims with facts/links. Let's not turn this thread into a partisan flamefest.
Is Karl Rove a bonafide political genius?
Without a doubt he is a genius, Rove has been actively involved in politics since 1970. He was able to learn from the best crooked politicians out there over the past 3 decades and has even pioneered some tricks himself.
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
The following is taken from a Guardian Article (source).
The Guardian too "liberal" for your tastes? A lot of this is also corroborated in the Austin Chronicle in this article. Here is another good article on Rove from the Texas Observer. Notice that two Texas sources basically confirm his reputation....
This is one of the first posts of this debate and already I know it is going to be extremely hard if not impossible to pass these off as facts for my republican counterparts. However, his reputation is well known, and if anything could actually be proved I'm sure he'd have been punished for it by now. That just speaks to his genius.
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
In principle, no, but either the Democrats do not have an attack machine or they aren't very good at it. In the past decade, how many stories have you heard about Democrats using petty tactics to win elections? Anything from the Gore, Clinton or Kerry campaigns? If there is something of substance I'd be delighted to hear about it, but I cannot recall anything.
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
No, I don't believe so. First there would have to be someone as devious and intelligent as Rove. I do not believe that person exists right now. Secondly that person would have to wield incredible power like Rove does, that also is not the case.
Without a doubt he is a genius, Rove has been actively involved in politics since 1970. He was able to learn from the best crooked politicians out there over the past 3 decades and has even pioneered some tricks himself.
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
The following is taken from a Guardian Article (source).
QUOTE
In the autumn election season of 1970, a cherubic, bespectacled teenager turned up at the Chicago campaign headquarters of Alan Dixon, a Democrat running for state treasurer in Illinois. No one paid the newcomer much attention when he arrived, or when he left soon afterwards. Nor did anyone in the office make the connection between the mystery volunteer and 1,000 invitations on campaign stationery that began circulating in Chicago's red-light district and soup kitchens, promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing" for all-comers at Dixon's headquarters.
As political dirty tricks go, it was minor league. Hundreds of the city's heavy drinkers and homeless turned up at a smart Dixon reception looking for free booze. Dixon was embarrassed but the plot failed to stop his momentum: he was elected state treasurer and went on to become a senator. But the teenager who stole his letterheads, Karl Rove, has gone even further.
As political dirty tricks go, it was minor league. Hundreds of the city's heavy drinkers and homeless turned up at a smart Dixon reception looking for free booze. Dixon was embarrassed but the plot failed to stop his momentum: he was elected state treasurer and went on to become a senator. But the teenager who stole his letterheads, Karl Rove, has gone even further.
QUOTE
He launched his political career by wresting control of the College Republicans, a radical group in the Nixon era. It was an unpleasant business. In an interesting precursor to the Florida battle 17 years later, Rove took on his opponent, Robert Edgeworth, principally on procedural grounds - challenging the credentials of every single Edgeworth delegate to the1973 College Republican convention and putting forward a rival delegate.
The aggressive tactics won the 22-year-old Rove a walk-on role in the Watergate saga that was consuming the nation. A report was published in the Washington Post on August 10, 1973, titled "[Republican party] Probes Official as Teacher of Tricks", gave an account, based on tape recordings, of how Rove and a colleague had been touring the country giving young Republicans political combat training, in which they recalled their feats of derring-do, such as Rove's Chicago heist at the Dixon headquarters.
The aggressive tactics won the 22-year-old Rove a walk-on role in the Watergate saga that was consuming the nation. A report was published in the Washington Post on August 10, 1973, titled "[Republican party] Probes Official as Teacher of Tricks", gave an account, based on tape recordings, of how Rove and a colleague had been touring the country giving young Republicans political combat training, in which they recalled their feats of derring-do, such as Rove's Chicago heist at the Dixon headquarters.
QUOTE
The 1986 governor's race was a prime example. The contest between Rove's Republican client, Bill Clements, and the Democratic incumbent, Mark White, was neck and neck, when Rove announced he had found an electronic listening device in his office, and cried foul. The furore swung the election to Clements and to this day Texan Democrats are convinced Rove concocted the whole episode.
QUOTE
In its last days, the 1994 campaign also turned nasty. Texan voters began receiving calls from "pollsters" asking questions such as: "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Governor Richards if you knew her staff is dominated by lesbians?" In the business, it is called "push-polling" and Shipley has no doubt who was behind it."Rove has used this kind of dirty tricks in every campaign he's ever run."
The Guardian too "liberal" for your tastes? A lot of this is also corroborated in the Austin Chronicle in this article. Here is another good article on Rove from the Texas Observer. Notice that two Texas sources basically confirm his reputation....
This is one of the first posts of this debate and already I know it is going to be extremely hard if not impossible to pass these off as facts for my republican counterparts. However, his reputation is well known, and if anything could actually be proved I'm sure he'd have been punished for it by now. That just speaks to his genius.
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
In principle, no, but either the Democrats do not have an attack machine or they aren't very good at it. In the past decade, how many stories have you heard about Democrats using petty tactics to win elections? Anything from the Gore, Clinton or Kerry campaigns? If there is something of substance I'd be delighted to hear about it, but I cannot recall anything.
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
No, I don't believe so. First there would have to be someone as devious and intelligent as Rove. I do not believe that person exists right now. Secondly that person would have to wield incredible power like Rove does, that also is not the case.
Is Karl Rove a bonafide political genius?
Yes- in the way Hitler was a political genius. He absolutely knows what he is doing is wrong and evil, but takes great relish in doing so. There is really no difference in personality for him and Goebles or Himler or Stalin.
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
Cube Jockey has done a pretty good job of pointing out some of them, but also I am absolutely sure that he was behind the "outing" of Ambassodor Wilson's wife, and behind all the smear's of the former administration figures that have contradicted this president's policies.
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
Probably the closest the dems ever came to this was in Caraville- but he would have to be "Rove-lite"- as his stuff was more just pure political debate taken to the negative end- wheras the Rove stuff is pure Hitleresque type manuveuring.
Yes- in the way Hitler was a political genius. He absolutely knows what he is doing is wrong and evil, but takes great relish in doing so. There is really no difference in personality for him and Goebles or Himler or Stalin.
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
Cube Jockey has done a pretty good job of pointing out some of them, but also I am absolutely sure that he was behind the "outing" of Ambassodor Wilson's wife, and behind all the smear's of the former administration figures that have contradicted this president's policies.
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
Probably the closest the dems ever came to this was in Caraville- but he would have to be "Rove-lite"- as his stuff was more just pure political debate taken to the negative end- wheras the Rove stuff is pure Hitleresque type manuveuring.
Cube Jockey's links were interesting, but they contained a lot of the 'We're sure Rove was behind it........we have no doubt that he did it......'
But not much in the way of facts or evidence.
Similarly, CR, you include examples of what I am talking about.
You call Rove Hitleresque and evil and compare him to nearly every member of the Nazi Party, and you're sure he was behind the the Wilson affair, but I'm looking for factual validation for these feelings.
If the disdain for Rove pretty much boils down to intuition and opinion, so be it. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I'm trying to see the real reasons for the demonization of a guy who seems pretty smart, but who the left views as the anti-christ.
But not much in the way of facts or evidence.
Similarly, CR, you include examples of what I am talking about.
You call Rove Hitleresque and evil and compare him to nearly every member of the Nazi Party, and you're sure he was behind the the Wilson affair, but I'm looking for factual validation for these feelings.
If the disdain for Rove pretty much boils down to intuition and opinion, so be it. I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I'm trying to see the real reasons for the demonization of a guy who seems pretty smart, but who the left views as the anti-christ.
Any good career criminal is good at covering his trackes DTOM- John Gotti still has many crimes he was accused of but never convicted- correct? OJ was found not guilty- by your level of proof, Karl Rove, unless found guilty in a criminal court of law, will never have done anything wrong.
This goes to the crux of everything that is wrong and hypocritical of the right for me- many on the right have no problems believing that Clinton killed Vince Foster and Ron Brown, despite actual evidence to the contrary- but when given any kind of proof that GW has lied, there "just isn't enough proof".
This goes to the crux of everything that is wrong and hypocritical of the right for me- many on the right have no problems believing that Clinton killed Vince Foster and Ron Brown, despite actual evidence to the contrary- but when given any kind of proof that GW has lied, there "just isn't enough proof".
This difference here is, not only is this not about GWB, but I'm not looking for criminal indictments here.
What I'm trying to discern is why is he evil?
Why is he slimy?
Why is he compared to Nazi's?
Why is he referred to by some as KKKarl?
Is there evidence of racism in his past? Anti-semitism? So based on innuendo, he's a career criminal who's just been real good at covering his tracks?
And BTW, Gotti was convicted, can't remember what for, but he died in prison if memory serves.
When someone disparages Bill or Hillary or Gore or whomever left with name calling and slurs, do you not question the absence of factual basis?
It almost sounds as if you've boiled down this debate to 'I don't care about the facts in this case because the republicans are more to blame for behavior like this...so there.'
Please prove me wrong.
What I'm trying to discern is why is he evil?
Why is he slimy?
Why is he compared to Nazi's?
Why is he referred to by some as KKKarl?
Is there evidence of racism in his past? Anti-semitism? So based on innuendo, he's a career criminal who's just been real good at covering his tracks?
And BTW, Gotti was convicted, can't remember what for, but he died in prison if memory serves.
When someone disparages Bill or Hillary or Gore or whomever left with name calling and slurs, do you not question the absence of factual basis?
It almost sounds as if you've boiled down this debate to 'I don't care about the facts in this case because the republicans are more to blame for behavior like this...so there.'
Please prove me wrong.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ May 6 2004, 10:38 AM)
Cube Jockey's links were interesting, but they contained a lot of the 'We're sure Rove was behind it........we have no doubt that he did it......'
But not much in the way of facts or evidence.
But not much in the way of facts or evidence.
Like I said in my post DTOM it is going to be extermely difficult, if not impossible to provide any facts about Rove's tactics. If there was hard evidence for some of his little tricks I firmly believe he would be sitting in a prison cell right now and we wouldn't be discussing this.
However, the man is very intelligent and also very good at covering his tracks.
I'm not sure what you are asking for here, clearly none of us have a personal relationship with Rove or any of his associates, no criminal charges have been filed or anything of that nature. What we do have though is the fairly common perception from both biased and unbiased sources that this is the way Rove operates.
If any of us could actually prove Rove did these things then I suppose we could destroy him. I don't see that happening, so the best I think that any of us can offer in the way of proof is widely accepted accounts of events.
Take a look at the man's reputation and the things he is suspected of doing, that answers your question on why he is slimy. If they were false allegations don't you think he would be screaming defamation of character?
Is Karl Rove a bonafide political genius?
Genius? No. Agonizingly effective at smearing his opponent? Yes. Example below. I'm going to keep it to the use of "Push Polls" because Rove has been dubbed by most to be the "Prince of Push Polling"
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
As mentioned above, I'll stick to "Push Polls" and the 2000 McCain-Bush S.C. primary. First, a definition from CBS News Kathy Frankovic
The specific instance I will focus on was his push polling in South Carolina when McCain had just won New Hampshire and showed to be in a dead heat with Dubyah.
Here is what happened (from the Murrow link above):
Bush used the momentum from this win to eventually wrap up the nomination. Ironically, had McCain been the nominee, I have no doubt that he would have absolutely pounded Gore in November (I know at least I would have voted Republican), avoiding the Florida fiasco. But Rove got his man in the White House.
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
I haven't seen any evidence of a "Democratic attack machine", though I'm interested to find out more (sincerely).
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
Not that I'm aware of. Republicans own the house, senate and the white house so if there is, he's not very good.
Doc
Genius? No. Agonizingly effective at smearing his opponent? Yes. Example below. I'm going to keep it to the use of "Push Polls" because Rove has been dubbed by most to be the "Prince of Push Polling"
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
As mentioned above, I'll stick to "Push Polls" and the 2000 McCain-Bush S.C. primary. First, a definition from CBS News Kathy Frankovic
QUOTE
But what is a push poll anyway?
Fundamentally, what people label a push poll isn't a poll at all. A push poll is political telemarketing masquerading as a poll. No one is really collecting information. No one will analyze the data. You can tell a push poll because it is very short, even too short. (It has to be very short to reach tens of thousands of potential voters, one by one). It will not include any demographic questions. The "interviewer" will sometimes ask to speak to a specific voter by name. And, of course, a push poll will contain negative information - sometimes truthful, sometimes not - about the opponent.
Fundamentally, what people label a push poll isn't a poll at all. A push poll is political telemarketing masquerading as a poll. No one is really collecting information. No one will analyze the data. You can tell a push poll because it is very short, even too short. (It has to be very short to reach tens of thousands of potential voters, one by one). It will not include any demographic questions. The "interviewer" will sometimes ask to speak to a specific voter by name. And, of course, a push poll will contain negative information - sometimes truthful, sometimes not - about the opponent.
The specific instance I will focus on was his push polling in South Carolina when McCain had just won New Hampshire and showed to be in a dead heat with Dubyah.
Here is what happened (from the Murrow link above):
QUOTE
In a show of political savagery never before encountered in American politics, Rove's push polls served the cause of then candidate Governor Bush in South Carolina. Within a short amount of time, John McCain's walk to the White House was disrupted by stories circulating like fire among South Carolina voters, stories push polled into their consciousness, namely that McCain’s wife, Cindy, was a drug addict, that the Senator himself was a basket case due to being a POW in Vietnam, and that he was the father of an illegitimate black child following a tryst with a prostitute. How can conservatives and liberals alike not howl in disgust at these tactics?
Bush used the momentum from this win to eventually wrap up the nomination. Ironically, had McCain been the nominee, I have no doubt that he would have absolutely pounded Gore in November (I know at least I would have voted Republican), avoiding the Florida fiasco. But Rove got his man in the White House.
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
I haven't seen any evidence of a "Democratic attack machine", though I'm interested to find out more (sincerely).
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
Not that I'm aware of. Republicans own the house, senate and the white house so if there is, he's not very good.
Doc
i would just like to put my 2 cents in real fast:
you make sound as if these 2 news sources are somehow "conservative". i am from texas, and know these 2 sources, and by NO means are they "conservative". austin texas is one of the most liberal cities in this region of the country, if not the entire country. the texas observer also has very high profile dems as contributors/sources as well. so, because you cited "proof" out of these 2 sources, holds about as much water as citing evidence from the new york times and moveon.org.
just wanted to point that out
QUOTE
The Guardian too "liberal" for your tastes? A lot of this is also corroborated in the Austin Chronicle in this article. Here is another good article on Rove from the Texas Observer. Notice that two Texas sources basically confirm his reputation....
you make sound as if these 2 news sources are somehow "conservative". i am from texas, and know these 2 sources, and by NO means are they "conservative". austin texas is one of the most liberal cities in this region of the country, if not the entire country. the texas observer also has very high profile dems as contributors/sources as well. so, because you cited "proof" out of these 2 sources, holds about as much water as citing evidence from the new york times and moveon.org.
just wanted to point that out
IQ isnt a mark of political ability or integrity. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln didnt have astronomical IQ's. Jimmy Carter did and he was a low tier president who was blown out in an election by a man who probably had the lowest IQ out of any president the US has had. Joseph Mengele and Herman Goering both had high IQ's. Karl Rove is a political weasel. One of those behind the curtain villians who run the show from the back. Seriously how may of us have seen Karl Rove?? What does he look like? Very few can answer. He is like De Niro in wag the dog.
Is Karl Rove a bonafide political genius?
Yes. Anyone that has as much control over the policy of an administration without receiving one single vote in an election would have to be considered a genius.
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
Not that I am aware of. Rove hasn't broken any laws, he simply knows the system very well, and plays within the rules.
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
Well I think that Rove is probably better at running "An Attack Machine" than his democratic counterparts.
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
No, I think Liberals have stronger morals. I feel Rove's mentality is win at all costs, even if it costs americans.
Yes. Anyone that has as much control over the policy of an administration without receiving one single vote in an election would have to be considered a genius.
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
Not that I am aware of. Rove hasn't broken any laws, he simply knows the system very well, and plays within the rules.
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
Well I think that Rove is probably better at running "An Attack Machine" than his democratic counterparts.
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
No, I think Liberals have stronger morals. I feel Rove's mentality is win at all costs, even if it costs americans.
QUOTE(kalabus @ May 7 2004, 02:14 PM)
Seriously how may of us have seen Karl Rove?? What does he look like? Very few can answer. He is like De Niro in wag the dog.
Actually I've seen him -- he appeared in Nov. 2002 at the University of Utah(where he once attended) giving a speech on what makes a great president. I was at the back of the room with a bunch of protesters holding signs.
QUOTE
What does he look like?
He's pasty white with a little bit of pink, overweight, balding and wears glasses and a suit.He proceeded to go through the history of "great presidents" and these attributes that he pointed out at similarities to GWB -- he never tried to directly compare GWB -- that would have been too obvious. He was much subtler than that.
One woman asked about the hundreds of thousands in the peace marches (at that point) and what it would take to get GWB's attention about not wanting to go to war. In a clever manipulation (not lying, not answering the question, and shoving unrelated information that suggested a link) typical of the GWB administration, Karl said something to the effect (not an actual quote) you mention these thousands of people, but I'm more concerned about the 3,000 people that died on September 11. Then he went on to the next question. Yup, he's smart -- but not for any good purpose.
My impression of the man was coldly evil, however I'm not sure if I can attribute that to what I've read and heard, or if he actually has that kind of aura.
edited to add: he's got to have been intelleigent to get the unintelligent GWB elected, and I believe it's due to his tactics that close to 50% of Americans are confused into believing he's doing a good job being president
First, I should mention that Karl Rove has never been a particular target of mine. I think he is a despicable human being and that his influence is insidious - he is, by all accounts, the Svengali behind the Trilby-like George W Bush - but I feel that there are far more dangerous and destructive people in this administration than Rove. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Ascroft, and Richard Perle are all much greater enemies of the United States than oily little Karl Rove. To the large extent that Bush is a puppet, Rove is the puppeteer - but they are both doing the bidding of neocon powers like Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Perle.
Is Karl Rove a bonafide political genius?
Nah. He's just very good at dirty tricks of the type perfected by Donald Segretti, Nixon's master dirty trickster - and one of Rove's early mentors. His genius lies in being a lawless prankster and, to an extent, a spin doctor. That his pranks are all geared toward effectively smearing political opponents and that his spin relates to the administration of the man with whom he's infatuated gives him the semblance of being a political genius. He's nothing of the sort.
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
Yes - but not many - and mostly earlier in his career. Part of being an effective master of dirty tricks is that you get away with it - and Karl Rove gets away with it (and has seemingly got better at getting away with it over the years).
Rove's first experience with politics was in 1970 when he broke into the office of Illinois State treasurer candidate, Alan Dixon and stole campaign stationery as described in the item Cube Jockey cited above. One of his most recent was quite possibly the outing of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA operative - at least that's who Wilson belives is responsible. In between, Rove's name has been linked with countless dirty tricks and smear campaigns, some with conclusive proof, some by mere speculation. But the overriding question is: if it wasn't Karl Rove, who was it?
If you are genuinely interested, DTOM, and can stomach such sources as The Nation and CounterPunch, more on the career of Karl Rove can he found here and here - with more information here and here and here and here and here and here.
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'?
I wouldn't call it a "Republican attack machine". Granted there have been concerted attacks and smear campaigns against such candidates as Edmund Muskie, George McGovern, Jim Hightower, Ann Richards, Bill Clinton, Joseph Biden, Bob Dole, Ross Perot, John McCain, Al Gore, Max Cleland, and John Kerry. They have all had one name in common: Karl Rove. I do not, therefore, think of it as a "Republican attack machine", but as a slimy attack dog frequently employed by some Republicans - Richard Nixon and the Bush family chief among them. Of course, Rove is not the only man to have participated in this sort of effort - Clinton, for example, was a favorite target of many political operatives on the right - but he has certainly made quite a career of it - and seems incapable of much else.
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
Good God, I hope not. I hope there's no equivalent to Karl Rove of any stripe - and pray that there never will be.
Removed image in accordance with forum Rules and potentially libelous content per member request.
Is Karl Rove a bonafide political genius?
Nah. He's just very good at dirty tricks of the type perfected by Donald Segretti, Nixon's master dirty trickster - and one of Rove's early mentors. His genius lies in being a lawless prankster and, to an extent, a spin doctor. That his pranks are all geared toward effectively smearing political opponents and that his spin relates to the administration of the man with whom he's infatuated gives him the semblance of being a political genius. He's nothing of the sort.
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
Yes - but not many - and mostly earlier in his career. Part of being an effective master of dirty tricks is that you get away with it - and Karl Rove gets away with it (and has seemingly got better at getting away with it over the years).
Rove's first experience with politics was in 1970 when he broke into the office of Illinois State treasurer candidate, Alan Dixon and stole campaign stationery as described in the item Cube Jockey cited above. One of his most recent was quite possibly the outing of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA operative - at least that's who Wilson belives is responsible. In between, Rove's name has been linked with countless dirty tricks and smear campaigns, some with conclusive proof, some by mere speculation. But the overriding question is: if it wasn't Karl Rove, who was it?
If you are genuinely interested, DTOM, and can stomach such sources as The Nation and CounterPunch, more on the career of Karl Rove can he found here and here - with more information here and here and here and here and here and here.
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'?
I wouldn't call it a "Republican attack machine". Granted there have been concerted attacks and smear campaigns against such candidates as Edmund Muskie, George McGovern, Jim Hightower, Ann Richards, Bill Clinton, Joseph Biden, Bob Dole, Ross Perot, John McCain, Al Gore, Max Cleland, and John Kerry. They have all had one name in common: Karl Rove. I do not, therefore, think of it as a "Republican attack machine", but as a slimy attack dog frequently employed by some Republicans - Richard Nixon and the Bush family chief among them. Of course, Rove is not the only man to have participated in this sort of effort - Clinton, for example, was a favorite target of many political operatives on the right - but he has certainly made quite a career of it - and seems incapable of much else.
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
Good God, I hope not. I hope there's no equivalent to Karl Rove of any stripe - and pray that there never will be.
Removed image in accordance with forum Rules and potentially libelous content per member request.
We apologize for the delay in reopening this. We must wait until Monday before we can reopen this thread. The all volunteer staff of AD appreciates your patience.
REOPENED. We apologize for the delay in reopening this. Thank you for your patience while we sorted out the legalities. 
TOPICS TO DEBATE:
Is Karl Rove a bonafide political genius?
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
Enjoy the debate!
TOPICS TO DEBATE:
Is Karl Rove a bonafide political genius?
Are there factual examples of low down dirty tricks that shouldn't be tolerated in politics, perpetrated by Rove?
Is the so-called 'Republican attack machine', ostensibly run by Rove, any different than a 'Democratic attack machine'
Is there a Liberal equivalent to Rove?
Enjoy the debate!
It is interesting that so far the last two questions haven't attracted some conservative input. Is Carville the only liberal that's similar to Rove? If so, are there any links to conservative articles on the subject? Examples of liberal dirty tricks in politics?
Or is it just assumed that the right fights dirty, so the left must do so as well?
The last two questions beg for support rather than assumption that the left is as dirty in politics as the right.
In the absense of this support, I'll have to assume that the left is either very good about hiding the dirt or isn't as dirty as the right.
Or is it just assumed that the right fights dirty, so the left must do so as well?
The last two questions beg for support rather than assumption that the left is as dirty in politics as the right.
In the absense of this support, I'll have to assume that the left is either very good about hiding the dirt or isn't as dirty as the right.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ May 11 2004, 10:41 AM)
It is interesting that so far the last two questions haven't attracted some conservative input. Is Carville the only liberal that's similar to Rove? If so, are there any links to conservative articles on the subject? Examples of liberal dirty tricks in politics?
Or is it just assumed that the right fights dirty, so the left must do so as well?
The last two questions beg for support rather than assumption that the left is as dirty in politics as the right.
In the absense of this support, I'll have to assume that the left is either very good about hiding the dirt or isn't as dirty as the right.
Or is it just assumed that the right fights dirty, so the left must do so as well?
The last two questions beg for support rather than assumption that the left is as dirty in politics as the right.
In the absense of this support, I'll have to assume that the left is either very good about hiding the dirt or isn't as dirty as the right.
Careful there, AM, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
Certainly the left has it's share of dirty politics specialists. Begala and Carville certainly among them. Those two characters refined the practice of the politics of personal destruction into an artform. Remember the "Drag a 20 dollar bill through a trailer park" comment in reference to Paula Jones. Remember the attacks on Kathleen Willey, and they were about to go after Monica untl that darn stain showed up. Nevermind the "accidental" release of classified documents pertaining to Linda Tripp. Out here in California we have the king of dirt and no, it's not Larry Flynt, but rather a democratic operative by the name of Bob Mulholland and he's been an active Democratic Party member for years with a rather "distinguished" record. He was the person behind the election eve "leaks" of information that Bruce Hershonsen was involved in North Hollywood strip joints when Bruce was running for the US Senate against Diane Feinstein. Turns out that wasn't true, not a shred of it, but the truth didn't come to light until after the election. Mulholland didn't deny he pulled the stunt, heck, he took credit for it. I suspect he may heve been behind the last minute smear campaign against Arnold during the recall, it has his "style".
And of course there was the smear campaign waged "in the shadows" back in 1996 against John Kasich when it appeared he might be a viable candidate - I won't go into the details on that, but it was similar to something that an anti-Bush zealot may have atttempted here. And while we're back in 1996, there was a
whispering campaign" waged against John McCain when he appeared to be gaining favor as a national GOP candidate. The "whispers" then were that McCain had conspired with the North Vietnamese while he was a POW in order to gain special favors from them. That didn't come from the right, but rather from the left and the sole basis of that charge was a letter that had appeared in a local vets newsletter in NJ written by a disgruntled vet angry at McCain for a vote he made in the Senate.
And lastly of course, we have the infamous Dick Tuck, the king of campaign pranksters. He goes way back and pulled some rather clever stunts or "dirty tricks" depending on which side you were on. He drove Richard Nixon absolutely crazy! You can read about him at this link.
So both parties do things like this, it's a part of the rough and tumble entity we know as American politics (The Saudis refer to it as a part of our "tribal warfare"), and I really don't think either side can take the high ground. To be sure, it's become far more viscious and personal lately and that's a sad thing I think. It's keeping a lot of good people out of the political arena.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.