Karl Rove: Brilliant Christ Figure
This is genius. Karl Rove sacrifices himself and steps down from his White House post to save the presidency for the GOP the only way he still can: ensure that the moronic Democratic primary voters choose Hillary Clinton as their '08 nominee.
What better way to whip up support for Hillary among the same people that brought us John Kerry than to have the Great Doughy Satan himself making the media rounds, while attacking Hillary in a way that creates an "aura of inevitability" (forgive me) about her candidacy.
I think Rove's particular strategy over the past decade or so will prove to have damaged the GOP in the long run, but there's no denying that the man is a black belt campaigner and short term tactician.
What better way to whip up support for Hillary among the same people that brought us John Kerry than to have the Great Doughy Satan himself making the media rounds, while attacking Hillary in a way that creates an "aura of inevitability" (forgive me) about her candidacy.
I think Rove's particular strategy over the past decade or so will prove to have damaged the GOP in the long run, but there's no denying that the man is a black belt campaigner and short term tactician.
posted by Mockrates at 6:38 PM
6 Comments:
How do you suppose that Rove has hurt the GOP "in the long run?"
If Iraq were not the cluster bang that it is, coupled with my fantasy that social liberals like Mark Foley run as the Democrats that they are, the Republicans would be doing just fine.
Abramoff will have been forgotten, Foley's playing with pages will be a side-bar a la Barney Frank's bordello, and the Republicans will have a shot in 2008. particularly if the war goes well. What would be disastrous is a Giuliani nomination. THAT would doom the Republicans by keeping half of her voters home.
For what it's worth, comrade Jeffskovetch, I do think that the Republicans have moved further away from most Americans than they were before. I think the Democrats, however, have moved even further away.
While I don't trust the "average American" to necessarily care about trickle down economics, I get the sense that she doesn't think wealthy people need more yachts, but neither is it necessary to partially deliver a child just to behead her, either.
And while there are many reasons to hate the war and how we are fighting it, I don't think it can be denied (ok, it SHOULDN'T be denied) that the Democrats have put themselves into a position that good news is bad for them.
I wonder if they might (being the opportunists that they are) have their cake and it eat it, too, by "correcting Bush's mistake" by bombing a la Clinton's Serbia.
"How do you suppose that Rove has hurt the GOP "in the long run?"
***
“A late July poll for Democracy Corps, a non-profit polling company, shows that a generic Democratic presidential candidate now wins voters under 30 years old by 32 percentage points. The Republican lead among younger white non-college-educated men, who supported President George W. Bush by a margin of 19 percentage points three years ago, has shrunk to 2 percentage points. Ideological divisions between the Republican party and young voters are growing. Young voters generally favour larger government providing more services, 68 per cent to 28 per cent. On every issue, from the budget to national security, young voters responded overwhelmingly that Democrats would do a better job in government.
It is not just Democracy Corps that has found this. A host of new polls and surveys over the course of the past few months has served as a harbinger of a rocky 2008 election for Republicans.
The March poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 50 per cent of Americans identify as Democrats while only 35 per cent say they are Republican. The June NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed 52 per cent of Americans would prefer a Democratic president while only 31 per cent would support a Republican, the largest gap in the 20-year history of the survey.”
Granted, most of this can be explained by the War and the seemingly endless corruption of congressional Republicans, but I don’t doubt for a minute that Rove’s famous penchant for subjugating all policy concerns to political concerns has had a big impact on the disastrous way this war has been run. Beyond that, my suspicion is that the effect of Rove’s strategy of catering almost exclusively to the Republican base has given these people the kind of high profile that scares the shit out of most swing voters--when they’re not being scared even more by terrorists and so-called terrorists. Also, the cornerstone of Republican identity that has been so ably promoted by Rove and his ilk is ferocious opposition to “big government,” which, as seen in the poll numbers above, more and more people seem to care less and less about. Finally, and I really think that the Republicans have ignored this fact to their growing peril, the Republican Party used to be a safe choice for those moderately conservative voters (like my mom) who may not have been particularly ideological, but just wanted people in office who were sober, unlikely to rock the boat, and would do a decent job of governing. That image has been demolished by this administration and Republican congress, and will take a long time to fix.
"…and the Republicans will have a shot in 2008. particularly if the war goes well."
***
It’s time to leave the Enchanted Forest, Christopher Robin.
"For what it's worth, comrade Jeffskovetch, I do think that the Republicans have moved further away from most Americans than they were before. I think the Democrats, however, have moved even further away."
***
In terms of positions on actual policies (stem cell research, the war, environmental policy, size of government, education), you couldn’t be more wrong (we can trade numbers if you want, but I don't expect this assertion to be very controversial). However, in terms of constructing a narrative, which is ultimately what counts, I think you’re only slightly wrong, and that is due largely to Rove’s rebranding of Republicans with the image of the outside-the-mainstream base, per my comments above.
"While I don't trust the "average American" to necessarily care about trickle down economics, I get the sense that she doesn't think wealthy people need more yachts, but neither is it necessary to partially deliver a child just to behead her, either."
***
You’re right, but do most Americans really identify PBA with the Democratic Party that closely? Obviously they do more so than with the Rovepublicans, but I don’t think it’s a “tar and feather” type connection, and as disgusting as it is, I don't think it's as important an issue for most voters as it is for you (although you have done a good job of arguing why it should be).
"And while there are many reasons to hate the war and how we are fighting it, I don't think it can be denied (ok, it SHOULDN'T be denied) that the Democrats have put themselves into a position that good news is bad for them."
***
Fortunately there's not very much of that! (that's a joke, obviously...) I don’t really understand this point. Isn’t this the nature of politics? If I’m a vocal opponent of Policy A, and then Policy A starts working, then I’m going to have egg on my face. The alternative is to not oppose something you feel to be wrong (as many of the Dems did back when the war started). I think we've had more than enough of that from the Democrats lately.
100-acre Wood, I mean. But you'd better clear out of the Enchanted Forest, too.
"The March poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 50 per cent of Americans identify as Democrats while only 35 per cent say they are Republican. The June NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed 52 per cent of Americans would prefer a Democratic president while only 31 per cent would support a Republican, the largest gap in the 20-year history of the survey.”
Yes, right now the gap is wide, but we do not do well to neglect the lack of a name attached to either side. For what it's worth, I prefer Clinton to Giuliani (I also prefer Hamm's to Blatz) but would prefer any other Republican over them both. So, a generic poll is no indication of how I'd actually vote, and while my own scenario is likely rare, I can imagine swing voters swaying based on the candidate.
As far as the "endless corruption" of the GOP, they are just now catching up to big city corruption. You have to give them some time to get good at it. Creeps like pedophiliac Mark Foley are best exposed but hardly par for the course, and I'll trade you a Jack Abramoff for a freezer full of Louisiana bribes.
I predict a general dissatisfaction that leads to low voter turnout, as opposed to complete Republican disaster. I do think that you find Bush being a negative in campaigning--you might ask him to sit out the 2008 campaigns.
As for the war going well, one needn't live in the Enchanted Forest to envision it going a heck of a lot better than it has been (of course, anything short of everyone dying horribly would appear an improvement). As far as I can tell, only Russ Feingold actually has taken Bush on from the beginning; it seems like everyone else is acting out of opportunism as opposed to any kind of moral outrage. A war is either just or unjust, and that does not depend on how well it is going, no matter what Democrat you ask.
"As far as the "endless corruption" of the GOP, they are just now catching up to big city corruption. You have to give them some time to get good at it. Creeps like pedophiliac Mark Foley are best exposed but hardly par for the course, and I'll trade you a Jack Abramoff for a freezer full of Louisiana bribes."
I think the point is that, in historical terms, they got good at it almost immediately upon taking office. Are you actually implying that depth and breadth of the corruption of Abramoff & Co. is somehow equivalent to that of William Jefferson? I think we should return to Roman punishments for all corruption (or maybe just modern Chinese) regardless of your party affiliation, but let's also keep a sense of scale here...
I don't think you're right about voter turnout, either. Perhaps we should bet a case of Blatz on it?
"As for the war going well, one needn't live in the Enchanted Forest to envision it going a heck of a lot better than it has been (of course, anything short of everyone dying horribly would appear an improvement). As far as I can tell, only Russ Feingold actually has taken Bush on from the beginning; it seems like everyone else is acting out of opportunism as opposed to any kind of moral outrage. A war is either just or unjust, and that does not depend on how well it is going, no matter what Democrat you ask."
Can't argue with that.
Post a Comment
<< Home