Rove’s message trap
It occurs to me that it might be helpful to consider this week’s flap over Karl Rove’s slander from Rove’s perspective.
The White House’s top political strategist was in New York at a time when his boss’ approval ratings are tanking, the war in Iraq is failing, the president’s signature domestic policy initiative has become a fiasco. Just this week, political reporters have been focusing on the fact that the CIA director knows where Osama bin Laden is but can’t (won’t?) catch him, Dick Cheney maintains mysterious beliefs that the Iraqi insurgency is in its “last throes,” and the Downing Street Memos are actually interesting after all.
Rove, like most Republicans, wanted some kind of detour in the political narrative. Dick Durbin was a useful piñata for about a week, but his unwarranted apology effectively ended the fiasco. Howard Dean has been a useful target, but he hasn’t given Republicans anything to work with this week. It was time for something new.
Rove, for whom very little happens by accident, wrote a carefully crafted speech, delivered in the media capital of the world. His remarks were not off the cuff; he planned to say every word — which leads me to believe he also expected the reaction he received.
The inevitable effect of these flare-ups over controversial statements by high-profile political players is that the statement in question gets repeated, over and over again, in every news avenue. That can either be beneficial or not, depending on the message.
If a magazine labels a lawmaker the “dumbest member of Congress,” the wrong move for him or her is to hold a press conference to deny it. It’s not in the member’s interest to draw more attention to the fact that others find him or her dumb. Rove, however, desperately wants to have a conversation over whether Dems are weak on fighting terrorism, so he lashes out at them with slanderous rhetoric, expecting the left to go apoplectic.
The effect, again, is predictable. “Rove says Dems are weak and pathetic; Dems say they’re not.” This is not a conversation that helps Dems in any way.
Is this to say that Dems should back off and let Rove’s vicious slur go unchallenged? No, but if the Dems are going to go after Rove, they need to focus the message on a preferable conversation.
I’m afraid, based on the news accounts this morning, the narrative so far is not quite right. Most outlets are focusing on “Dems object to accusations of timidity.” That won’t do; it gives Rove’s message a megaphone.
So, what should be the Dems message? One option is to accuse Rove and the Bush gang of exploiting 9/11 for partisan gain. That’s not bad, but this has been a staple of White House politics for nearly four years now, and in this context, Rove’s slander was nothing new.
Another option is to counter Rove on the substance, pointing out how terribly wrong his accusations are. This tack probably doesn’t help, because it suggests Rove’s slurs are substantive enough to warrant a serious critique. They’re not.
The option that makes sense to me is to focus exclusively on the idea that Karl Rove believes all Democrats are treasonous enemies of the state. Kevin Drum highlighted the part of Rove’s remarks that were the most serious.
It’s one thing to make belligerent pronouncements that contrast conservative toughness with liberal wimpiness. It’s nasty and demeaning, but hardly something we haven’t heard before. The Al Jazeera passage, on the other hand, goes considerably further: it says specifically that the motive of Dick Durbin and others who criticize prisoner abuse is to put our troops in danger. He didn’t say Durbin was merely careless, he said Durbin wanted to put our troops in greater danger. That’s treason.
Generally speaking, I tend not to get too bent out of shape by occasional rhetorical howlers. It’s just part of the game. But calling Durbin and his fellow liberals traitors — which is clearly what that passage suggests — really is beyond the pale coming from a highly placed political official, isn’t it?
Indeed it is. It’s exactly why this should be the center of Dem criticism of Rove.
It’s not enough to say Rove is wrong about the Dem response to 9/11, a callous rat bastard, and an exploitative S.O.B. The message would be more poignant if news accounts said, “Dems demand Rove resignation for accusations of treason.”
How about this? I’m rarely outraged by what a party official says. The problem here is that Rove is not a party official, he’s a government official. That’s why Reid et all are justified in demanding his head.
When a government official calls 1/2 of the country traitors, he’s got to go.
Is this a diversion? I noticed that this came at the exact time that the DSMs were being covered more heavily. Their strategy: Get the Dems all in a huff about mere words from an evil man and no one will care about Bush’s lies.
And we fell for it.
I think Howard Dean ought to challenge Karl Rove to a fight.
Maybe I’m just not pushing my tinfoil hat down far enough over my ears, but I’m detecting something bigger than a single speech. In particular, I’m recalling Tom Friedman’s column from a couple of weeks ago, the one where he levelled the following accusation:
Liberals don’t want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don’t want the Bush team to succeed.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/15/opinion/edfried.php
Could it be that we’re seeing the first attempts to hang Bush’s failing war around the necks of the opposition?
For the record, this liberal (and, I suspect, almost all liberals) desperately want the war to succeed somehow. It’s been 30 years since the last failed U.S. war, and the country’s still reeling in reaction. Not to mention that if the war fails, it means Iraq will be another Somalia, but more stategically located and oilier.
I agree, focus on the treason, and then make note of how the RNC is using the Durbin speech in their grassroots advertising. If they are so concerned about Al Jazeera and the terrorists using this speech in inflaming their followers, why is the RNC sending it out to 3.5 million and repeating it ad nauseum.
Wow, Carpetbagger–this is even better than my suggestion of asking Rove why he wants us to lose the war! (On a different thread)
Republicans should either start the treason trials or shut up. Since 49% of America voted for Kerry (and the percentage who oppose Bush is likely much higher now), the Republicans won’t have the balls to do it even if they have the will. Why not rub their faces in it? Expose them as a bunch of gutless keyboarders who can never make their deeds match their words.
What about adding a dose of ridicule into the mix?
Point out how these pathetic over-the-top attacks are simply a sign of how desperate the White House is. Laugh at Rove as a stupid bully full of bluster but lacking any real punch to back up his rhetoric.
It may also be possible that Rove’s gambit will also be less successful than he wants, because they’ve gone to the well on terrorism so many times already. Fatigue does set in after a while even on effective messaging.
Scott, on Friedman’s column. I can’t wait until the NYT goes to a pay site for their op/ed. Then no one will pay attention to the bullshit they peddle.
What someone needs to point out is that Democrats did not oppose military action in Afghanistan (remember that country, the ones harboring terrorist camps). Yes, many did oppose the War in Iraq, which in my recollection (and according to the 9-11 report) did not have any connection to 9/11 or supporting terrorists.
Let’s define this argument in greater detail. I believe Rove is trying to change the memory of Americans by saying that Dems didn’t support strikes against Afghanistan.
Dems should be out there saying that we still support the War against terror in Afghanistan. In fact, let’s make sure Afghanistan appears in the press as much as possible so that we bring some fresh light to this “forgotten war”. Let’s bring the focus back to the terrorists, the Taliban, Bin Laden and Afghanistan – the REAL war on terror.
How about this. When Rove talked about how conservatives responded, why not fill in the blanks. George Bush responded to an attack on America by 19 mostly Saudis by 1) whisking Saudi nationals out of the country, 2) starting, but not finishing a war in Afganhistan 3) Diverting resources from finding Bin Laden to settle a score in Iraq, 4) which was so badly planned and poorly outfitted that victory promptly turned to chaos. In his deep belief in personal responsibility, he then awarded a medal of honor to 1) the chief spy who didn’t see it coming, 2) the general who didn’t have the balls to demand enough troops and 3) the hack who dismantled any existing Iraqui institutions and managed to lose track of billions in US taxpayer money.
That’s the way conservatives do it. Good show George.
It’s quite obvious to anyone with knowledge of Iraq that the Rove Insurgency is in its last throes.
Instead of these apologize or resign demands, tie any discussion of Rove’s remarks to his increased policy role in Bush’s second term, and invite the conclusion that Bush is doing so poorly over the last six months because his policies are now driven by the likes of Rove.
JG,
Yes! YES! people remember ridicule much better than facts. AND they repeat the ridicule at the office cooler, gym, park, outside church, etc. NAD they’ll hear it expanded on when they watch late night television. That’s what get Rove’s goat–not being the target of scorn, he loves that, but being the target of lasting ridicule.
(oh my…the grammar errors and misspellings truly are embarrassing…apologies all…)
Edo,
I totally agree!!! (not about misspellings) But about Ridicule!! Yes!! Not only should Dems be attacking this lame-duck wormtongue, I believe someone should have the guts to compare him to Goebbels “but without the personality and brains” or some such. And then DON’T apologize for it!
Response: “Because we don’t condone torture makes us patriotic, because they do condone torture makes them treasonous.”
Someone has got to figure out a way to get Jon Stewart, or his writers, on the Dem payroll. That’s one consultant who we should be paying to help us. Forget framing, we need to make these jokers laughing stocks. And Rove-the-stove, Wolfawitless, et. al. are peferct butts for the jokes, because they are appointed. That way we can dis the administration, without directly dissing the people who voted for them.
“We’re not making fun of the people you voted for, Mr and Mrs. Red Staters. We have too much respect for you. But, c’mon you got to admit this Rove guy is a joke. Why he even >.”
What are people going to remember? They will remember the ridicule of someone they didn’t vote for. And they’ll rightly associate that person with the GOP. Bush is not the target anymore. Rove, Gileseppe (sp?), the new head of the RNC. Unelected people who are inextricably tied to the GOP. We have to make them laughingstocks. Then in campaigns, we can subtly ridicule the GOP candidate by extension. “My honorable opponent is smart, hardworking and a patriot. I respect him fully. But, c’mon you got to admit this Rove guy is a joke. Why he even >.”
after the “he even>” there was supposed to be: {insert devastating ridicule of Rove here}
…the rendering engine ate it. (I should’ve known better).
Interesting. I love this angle. And it makes the most sense too of any explanation I’ve yet seen.
Rove wasn’t attacking Democrats because we were being wimps. He was attacking us because we (particularly Dean and Durbin) were being ballsy and aggressive!
The conversation we need to have is: Why is Karl Rove such a frightened little pussy scaredy-pants that he has no option but to calling us traitors?
David Gergen was on MSNBC’s “Countdown” last night. According to him, it’s an obvious strategy hatched in the White House…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8344607/
“As the public mood has soured on the war, and Democrats are now beginning to call for timetables and pullouts and that sort of thing, and they’re also opposing the president at every turn in the Congress, there’s no, there’s been an obvious effort in the White House, or decision in the White House, to step up the rhetorical attacks against Democrats.”
[…]
“You know, so it seems that what they’re doing is, they’re trying to stymie criticism of their administration by basically questioning the motives and the patriotism of those who oppose them. And I, that, that’s a tactic we’ve seen in American politics for a long time. And in the past, it’s never worked. I don’t think it’ll work now.”
And now that’s been confirmed…
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=2&u=/ap/20050624/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rove_speech
A White House official said Friday the administration finds it “somewhat puzzling” that Democrats are demanding presidential adviser Karl Rove’s apology or resignation for implying that liberals are soft on terrorism.
“I think Karl was very specific, very accurate, in who he was pointing out,” communications director Dan Bartlett said, contending the comments weren’t aimed at all Democrats. “It’s touched a chord with these Democrats. I’m not sure why.”
“I don’t know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt as I watched Falluja crumble to the earth; our houses destroyed; and our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.
Moderation and restraint is not what I felt – and moderation and restraint is not what was called for. It was a moment to summon our national will – and to brandish steel.”
This quote was pulled from the Karl Rove speech, with a few references modified,to show who’s really motivating the terrorists.
Rove is a swine who roots in partisan political filth, and you can smell it on his breath when he utters crap like this.
The idea of asking Rove to resign strikes me as pretty dumb. Why would he admit an error ? There’s no point asking Rove anything.
Dems need to drag Bush in this mess and ask him (Bush) whether he’s going to fire Rove or stand by Rove’s words. Of course, Bush will not fire his brain. But each time Bush tries to pull his “uniter, not a divider routine”, the Dems can point to Rove’s words as being Bush’s very own words.