Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Karl Rove: forgetful or worse?

So I came across an editorial on the WSJ today. It's written by Karl Rove and talks about what a swell guy McCain is and how Americans need to know this. It's mostly fluff, but it got me all riled up. I'd like to explain why. Consider this passage:

For example, in 1991 Cindy McCain was visiting Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh when a dying infant was thrust into her hands. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life, so Mrs. McCain brought the child home to America with her. She was met at the airport by her husband, who asked what all this was about.

Mrs. McCain replied that the child desperately needed surgery and years of rehabilitation. "I hope she can stay with us," she told her husband. Mr. McCain agreed. Today that child is their teenage daughter Bridget.

It is a nice story isn't it? all warm and fuzzy. But shamefully, Mr. Rove leaves out a crucial part of the story, one that took place in the 2000 South Carolina primary. McCain was locked in a tight battle with Rove's former boss, the then-Governor of Texas, George W. Bush. During that primary, Bush supporters spread rumours that McCain had an illegitimate child with a black prostitute. He even had the nerve to appear in PUBLIC with this child. The proof was his daughter, Bridget. Photos of the two of them together were circulated. the rumours were considered very damaging and probably were part of the reason McCain lost.

Now, I'm not saying Rove had anything to do with this. really: I'm not. But he must have known. How could he not bring this up? Isn't it relevant to what he's talking about? For this failure alone, the editorial is deeply flawed at best and at worst is...something I'd rather not say.


John said...

I like that your subject sets up this post in the form of a question, because I think it has a clear answer.


Rove clearly has a massive case of selective memory, but what's more is that he's a clever and smart enough guy that I can't help but assume he knows what he's omitting. That said, I'm sure that creeps like Rove and Cheney have elaborate ways that they explain to themselves how their actions, omissions, etc. are necessary for this or that.

In Rove's case, however, I think the bottom line is that he's a say anything, take any road necessary to the desired end kind-of-guy. The frightening thing is to ponder how a beltway slime ball like this actually pursues a narrow set of goals (let's recall the term newscasters used to trip over themselves to link Rove with, "the permanent Republican majority") at the expense of the safety, health, strength and unity of our great nation.

Maybe I've read too many slanted characterizations of the guy, but I truly feel he's the caricature of the great divider, and it will take one hell of a unifier to make much progress as long as he's working the sidelines of this game.

What a schmuck.

Aww crap... and I was trying to be so thoughtful until that last line.

Venice said...

Well, I think that was a pretty thoughful post throughout! I think I know what you mean. I am never sure if I see the real Rove or just a cartoon villian. I've obviously never met the guy and for all I know he's no worse than any other major political operative (which isn't saying much). But stuff like the editorial doesn't do much to improve my opinion of him. I hope his influence in the Republican party is on the way out

Stamford Talk said...

I like to believe the best about people. I think, "How could Rove (and Cheney) possibly be as bad as they seem?" But then, you know how history is full of really evil leaders? Then I think, "Well, if I had to identify anyone in US politics as evil..."