red rover, red rover, send karl rove… far away
by Cameron Contois
Published: January 21, 2008
Karl Rove has always made my skin crawl, and deep down, part of me did envy the fact that he was so good at what he did. Like before the 2000 South Carolina primary, Rove and Bush viciously attacked Senator John McCain, including attacks on McCain’s service in the Navy, his sanity and even his family. He painted an American war hero into an unstable coward.
It’s never been proven that Rove had a part in the mysterious phone calls made to voters asking, “If voters would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if he had fathered an illegitimate black child.” So many people suspected Rove was behind it that, whether he had a hand in it or not, it attests to how he operates.
Just like how every time polls put Kerry in the lead in 2004, terror alerts miraculously rose as well. Rove knows how to twist the truth, tap into the American people’s fear and prejudices and use them against his opponents.
But lately, Rove seems to be losing his touch. His slam of Hillary Clinton after she won Michigan’s primary proves it. In the Michigan primary, Clinton won 55 percent of the Democratic vote over the 40 percent uncommitted. At the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting, Rove energetically stated: “If you run against nobody, and nobody gets 40 percent of the vote… that’s pretty remarkable testament to the deep concerns the Democrats have about Senator Clinton when she can’t barely beat nobody else.”
The problem with this statement is that Clinton didn’t beat “nobody.”
I live in Michigan, and just like anyone else in Michigan can tell you, any Michigander supporting Obama or Edwards voted uncommitted. My Facebook inbox is full of messages from the NMU Chapter of Students for Barack Obama urging me to vote uncommitted since Obama wasn’t on Michigan’s ballot. In the Detroit area, Rep. John Conyers, an Obama supporter, ran a radio ad calling for Michigan Democrats to vote uncommitted. Unless Obama and Edwards are nobodies, Rove’s statement is absurd.
Another swing and a miss can be found in Rove’s “How to Beat Hillary (Next) November.” (Newsweek. 26th Nov. 2007) He states that to beat the Democratic presidential candidate, he must be strong on the Iraq issue. “Democrats have bet on failure [in Iraq]…. If the question is who will get out quicker, the answer is Hillary. The Republican candidate wants to recast the question to: who will lead America to victory in a vital battleground in the War on Terror?” Rove still thinks he needs only put a little spin on an issue and the dumb American people will fall for it. He’s wrong; the American people are smarter than that and tired of this war. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in May 2007, 76 percent of Americans feel that the war in Iraq is going badly. Another 61 percent believe we should never have gone there in the first place.
Rove mentions “victory” in Iraq. I would like to ask Rove what he feels will finally constitute a win in this never ending war on terror. Will there have to be an Iraqi National Baseball League and all the Iraqi women baking apple pies before we leave?
I agree with Julie Mason, who writes “in an election year when voters are worried about the economy, the war in Iraq, and looking for change and fresh ideas, the rhetoric of Karl Rove is sounding a little obsolete.” (”Rove’s Rhetoric is a Bid to Stay Relevant.” Houston Chronicle. 17th Jan. 2008)
Will this guy please go away? The American people are sick of all the negativity. That is why Huckabee’s strong faith and Obama’s positive message of change are clicking with the voters. You’re time is up, Rove. You had a good run. Now it’s time to bow out… and not a moment too soon.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
