Karl Rove and the Swifties
Jim Pfaff (Opinion Times) sees Andrew Sullivan (Daily Dish) as almost-tacitly charging Karl Rove with the latest ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. (Noting that JF Kerry had erased President Bush's big lead in the polls, he said that the momentum was going Kerry's way and Kerry usually implodes in such situations. "And it's also a scenario in which Rove unloads his dirt-bomb. Uh-oh.")
Sullivan's Sullivan. Rove knows better than to touch the Swifties. The Washington Times (linked above), however, tells us that Republican consultant Rick Reed is involved in this latest ad. Of course, it's Reed's firm – Stevens, Reed, Curcio, and Potholm – is producing the ads.
Karl Rove is the bogeyman. When his name is used, it is almost assuredly a cover for a basic ignorance.
It could be a sign of ignorance, or it could be derived from intelligent analysis. Karl Rove is the 1000 lb. gorilla political-strategist in this race -- the only one on either side. And he hardly ever reveals his poker hand to the world. He's as sly as they come. I wouldn't be surprised, for instance, if Bush included his seemingly bizarre reference to the 19th century Dred Scott Supreme Court case at Rove's urging. We all know Bush is not a historian -- or an economist -- or much of anything, really, other than a pretty face to push through the radical agendas of neoconservatives, a specific group of controversial evangelical Christians, and a few others. I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and I can honestly say that Bush has never said a single thing that made me pause and think. The man is a total moron, and it's very sobering that he's in charge of the free world.
One of the reasons he's in charge of the free world, of course, is Karl Rove, who has a knack for manipulating just enough politically to get his man the win. There's no doubt Rove has connections to the Swift Boat group; that's been documented. The real question is how strong are the connections; and that's something I can't answer, partly because I have more relevant things to worry about.
Like, for instance, that our president is pursuing the most dangerous foreign policy in the history of our country. Rather than pursue the man (and those connected to him) who attacked us on 9/11, killing 3000 people (!) and destroying two of the world's tallest skyscrapers, he basically did bin Laden's bidding by attacking a nation al-Qaeda called an "apostate regime" and "infidels" (which is also what they called the US government). Iraq had virtually no Islamic extremists pre-9/11, and the State Department told us that there were 45 countries that had an al-Qaeda PRESENCE on 9/11 -- including the US -- and Iraq wasn't one of them.
Although Bush's war in Iraq obviously hasn't fazed al-Qaeda, since they weren't there in the first place, it has certainly helped them and their allies recruit. The war has increased anti-Americanism to what the State Department referred to as "shocking levels." The department also told us that terrorism around the world has spiked since the war began.
This president is the most dangerous, reckless, unintelligent president in American history -- in my view, by a comfortable distance. The man is completely incapable of running our government. And I hope that before election day, Americans try to do their research on what's really going on rather than simply pick up their pom-pom's and cheer for their favorite party. I am deadly serious. This man is dangerous. I urge everyone to take a serious look at what's truly going on, and try to cut through the disingenuous spin about the "war on terror" we hear coming out of the White House.
America is a great place, and it's worth preserving. But this is a democracy. We all have to wake up and pay attention. It's not enough just to choose a favorite. At such a critical juncture in our history, we have to choose the RIGHT GUY.
Dred Scott? It's a case some of the more dedicated pro-life advocates refer to when making their case against Roe v. Wade. It suggests that US law never intended blacks to be considered citizens. Roe v. Wade argues that unborn babies/fetuses/embryos were never meant to be considered people. And voila. Unfortunately, there are some problems with the comparison, since fetuses/babies clearly cannot feasibly have full protection under the law, for the simple reason that they cannot even move on their own. You can't steal $5 from an unborn baby. An unborn baby doesn't have a social security number. An unborn baby doesn't need free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to participate in an armed militia, etc. The point is forced.
With the future of the world and the future of America at stake in this election, I don't think we have the luxury of worrying too much about an issue like abortion. But this is an issue I've thought a lot about, since people I respect on both sides have different views of it. I've heard some solid arguments from the pro-life crowd over the years, and in the end we're all pro-life, but there's a question of how much power we need to give the government over issues like this. To a degree, I believe it's not up to governments to legislate morality, but up to us to teach it to each other and to our kids.
I listened to someone tell me about friends she knew who'd died in back alley abortions. This isn't a myth. It really happens, and it's the poor people in America who suffer the most because they're the ones who can't afford the premium black-market doctors. They get stuck with the clothes' hangers.
The Bible certainly doesn't say anywhere that the federal government needs to outlaw abortion. In fact, religion often works best when it's separated from the federal government. I think it's very possible to believe abortion is wrong and also believe this is not a matter the government needs to force down our throats, and I think the issue is too often oversimplified.
Having covered more tangents than I believe I'm allowed in one post, I'll now sign off gracefully.
I urge everyone to think very carefully about who you choose in the upcoming election. I love this country, and I really want it to be around 50 years from now. This is the most important election of our lives.
I am not sure where to begin with this. By the "connections" between Rove and the Swifties, you are referring to that nifty New York Times chart. There was nothing to that, all he knew him and him knew he. Nothing tied convincingly. If that paper had spent the time drawing a chart with the al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connections, we might actually have something to look at.
You speak of Karl Rove in apocalyptic terms, almost as if he were a demigod, yet you lower him to the level of a moron who knows only how to do certain, specific things only to assist the political career of a certain, specific individual. Is he limited, is he not?
You suggest that the President should be pursuing Osama bin Laden and punishing him for what he did on September 11. Why? What purpose would it serve? We could shriek, "Yippee! We got him! Let's kill him!" We would do it – he would deserve it – then the enemies of the Western world would strike us again. And again. And again. And again. Saddam Hussein would resume his manufacture of WMD, he'd find a way to get them to the terrorists, and we could all be blown away.
What President Bush recognizes is that terrorists are a defeatable minority. By removing their mystique and, most importantly, the conditions in which they breed, he is working toward removing the danger.
Is pre-emption a desirable foreign policy? No. Is it the one we must use in order to survive? Yes. Whether or not George Bush has made you think is not my first concern; the survival of my home is.
George Bush has never said a thing to make you think. Has any politician? Kerry is incapable of saying anything that could make me think anything but: "What he say?" The man is a living muddle.
Anyway, the question at hand is Karl Rove. Is he assisting the Swifties? The descriptions of Rove you have given, as I've mentioned above, fit the bogeyman. Like Andrew Sullivan, you try to turn a man you consider to be of limited abilities into the 1,000 pound gorilla.
Now, the choice we make is simple. What do we want this country to be? Do we want this country to be? If you want this country to exist in 50 years, you want to defeat the enemy. Capturing Osama bin Laden will be good for immediate gratification – and it is a good political line for JF Kerry – but it will not stop a greater enemy that wants to see this country destroyed as a great big infidel.
What an incredible construct of innuendo, assumption, opinion, ideology and emotionalism, all tightly bound together with ignorance. No wonder the post was anonymous.
And the basis for this totally unfounded and slanderous assertion of an illegal connection to the Swift Boat Vets? The completely unsupported opinion of Andrew Sullivan. Johnathan Gewirtz at Chicago Boyz, in a recent post, said the following about Andrew: "He writes beautifully but his analysis of matters economic (deficits bad!) and geopolitical (we're losing!) is somewhat less acute than is his rhetoric. Some people simply write better than they think."